Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: GaryN
We dont know the true absolute light levels as they never used their exposure meter outside of the LM, ground control gave them the exposure settings they wanted for different shots.

They had film of set ISO (obviously), set exposure (1/250), and a selector for predetermined aperture settings. Given the fact that the photos came out alright (give or take a few inadvertantly over-or-under-exposed shots), those settings worked, and should give us an idea of the light levels on the sunlit lunar surface.



It was very sunny on the Moon indeed.

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

the simplest argument against this idiocy - the sun is a star

Idiocy? yes, those idiots travelling to the moon in their fancy machines! His observation is worth consideration, and if you cant see stars from the moon, maybe stars are something that we dont necessarily understand. This is speculation, but maybe they are somehow embedded into our atmosphere, or something.

I have a hard time believing I just read that.

I know right!

The stupidity is running thick on this thread.

Im starting to think those Americans rhat think the sun revolves round the earth are the "smart" ones

Id refute all this crap but jadestar is doing a excellent job so far and has more patience than me it seems!

Any image of earth from space at night? Do we see stars there? Answer is yes, so are these all fabricated since we see stars outside the earth atmosphere?

a reply to: Phage

They had light meters?

airandspace.si.edu...

The exposure settings worked quite well, right?

Yes, wide dynamic range film, and 'pushing' where needed during developing. Almost idiot-proof.

But what makes you think that Houston gave them settings?

Shepard took some unscheduled images of Earth while waiting for Houston to give them exposure settings for his next shot:

135:03:39 Shepard: (Now back at the foot of the ladder) What setting would you like on that solar wind shot, Fredo? 135:03:42 Haise: Stand by. (Long Pause) [While Al is waiting for Fred to give him an answer, he takes the camera off the RCU bracket, grabs hold of the bottom rung on the ladder, bends back, and points the camera up to take pictures of the Earth over the LM. These are AS14-64- 9189 to 9197.] [Journal Contributor Danny Ross Lunsford notes that Al has captured Venus over Antares in all these images.] [As Haise begins the next transmission, Ed arrives back at the MET with his weigh bag.] 135:04:35 Haise: Okay, Al. I'd go ahead and use your standard down-Sun picture if that's the direction you're shooting it in. They don't have an input here. (Pause) Okay... 135:04:47 Shepard: All right. 135:04:48 Haise: ...just got an input. They want f/11 at 1/25th (probably means 1/250th).

Venus showed up, just, with some enhancement, in the Earth image, but Venus should be blindingly bright, it is on Earth anyway. Shepard never mentioned seeing it at the time though.

There is no reason I don't think that digital cameras should not be able to image the stars, and Change'e has been sitting on the lunar surface for months now, and took an image of the Earth:
i.space.com...
It hasn't yet managed to image the stars, and I'm sure the camera is quite capable of doing so if my old 2 MP early digital can.
Similarly with Mars, the rover cameras have imaged the moons, but not the stars, so it would seem they are visible from Earth because of the denser atmosphere. If the atmosphere on Mars is too thin to make the stars visible, then the Moons atmosphere certainly is.

a reply to: cooperton

This is def a very interesting subject. IF stars can not be seen except from on earth then what is going on?

Are there any pics from the moon or mars that clearly show stars like here on Earth?

a reply to: GaryN
Interesting. Seems to contradict your claim about them not using it.

During the Apollo 11 luanr mission of July 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin carried this specially designed Minolta light meter on the lunar surface in order to acquire accurate exposure information quickly and easily

Venus should be blindingly bright, it is on Earth anyway.

Venus has never blinded me. It gets up to magnitude -4.5. The Moon gets quite a bit brighter.

It hasn't yet managed to image the stars, and I'm sure the camera is quite capable of doing so if my old 2 MP early digital can.

Can you image stars with a properly exposed Moon in the same image?

so it would seem they are visible from Earth because of the denser atmosphere.

No. It would seem that with proper exposure, they would be just as visible on Earth, Moon, or Mars.

a reply to: projectbane

Are there any pics from the moon or mars that clearly show stars like here on Earth?

No. You will never see an image from the Moon or Mars looking like astrophotography shots taken from Earth. As to what is going on, Miles Mathis believes the atmosphere diffuses the intense but too small to be detected by eye (angular diameter) of even the nearest star. If that is the case, then a decent off-the-shelf 'scope in space should be able to see them, but there were no visible light 'scopes in space till Hubble. UV and x-ray scopes since the early days, but no visible light ones.
My model has no photons traversing the vacuum, rather it tavels as UV/EUV/X-ray self-focusing, self perpetuating 'bullets', for lack of a better term, and Hubbles (still classified Shack Hartmann based science, and not the available adaptive optics stuff)optics and the processing software perform the same process as our atmosphere does, creating photons that our eyes or a regular camera can capture.
Again, without experiments, it is speculation. Some of the technology is being released, through the "Can you see it now?" program, and some Mini-Hubbles are in the works.
www.nasa.gov...
And, if my theory is correct, then a planet or other body out there that has a decent atmosphere will be warmer and brighter than it should be according to the accepted model of how the Suns light and heat would decrease using the accepted inverse square model. I'm hoping Pluto has a decent atmosphere to test the idea.

The Star Tracker systems utilised early implementations of this technology, used firstly by the Military in the ICBMs. Very expensive and bulky, but thanks to miniturisation, very small and much cheaper now. If a regular camera worked in space, why go to the bother of complex and expensive Star Trackers?


@Phage

Interesting. Seems to contradict your claim about them not using it.

Don't recall them ever using it, or mentioning using it.

Venus has never blinded me. It gets up to magnitude -4.5. The Moon gets quite a bit brighter.

If both were in view, Venus near the Earth would have been very noticable. No lunar astronaut ever claimed to have seen Venus, or any other planet.

Can you image stars with a properly exposed Moon in the same image?

Do you really believe that they would not have tried, during the Lunar or Martian nights, to have never tried some astrophotography with the rover cameras? You must work for NASA.

No. It would seem that with proper exposure, they would be just as visible on Earth, Moon, or Mars.

And of course, why would they want to show stars from the Moon or Mars, yeah, daft idea, silly me.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: projectbane
Do you really believe that they would not have tried, during the Lunar or Martian nights, to have never tried some astrophotography with the rover cameras?

Curiosity rover did some night sky photography, but because its sensor wasn't made for such purpose, ony few of the brightest stars are visible (along with Phobos and Deimos, and the bright planets like Jupiter). The rest of the image is filled with sensor noise.

Example:

originally posted by: GaryN
Yes, wide dynamic range film, and 'pushing' where needed during developing. Almost idiot-proof.

Any excuse you can find to keep your theory afloat. This is getting pathetic. Besides, those few over-or-under-exposed images show that the film and the developing process weren't miraculously optimised for every light/exposure condition.

Venus showed up, just, with some enhancement, in the Earth image, but Venus should be blindingly bright, it is on Earth anyway. Shepard never mentioned seeing it at the time though.

Venus sin't blindingly bright under sunlight. It is barely visible in Shepard's images because the camera used 1/250 exposure. It is quite possible that he saw Venus, because for one of the images he leaned slightly to the right, perhaps to insure a clearer view of Venus next to the LM's antenna dish: www.hq.nasa.gov...

There is no reason I don't think that digital cameras should not be able to image the stars, and Change'e has been sitting on the lunar surface for months now, and took an image of the Earth:
i.space.com...
It hasn't yet managed to image the stars, and I'm sure the camera is quite capable of doing so if my old 2 MP early digital can.

How many times do we have to tell you that the exposure and other camera settings play a big role in this? Of course digital cameras can image stars. They just need enough exposure and sensitivity, not to mention a clear view of space and no bright objects or surfaces in the view. Chang'e images without the stars involve either sunlit lunar surface, or the sunlit Earth. It did take images of the stars using its UV telescope, but you'll just say "aha, that proves that stars can only be visible in UV!"

a reply to: wildespace

Venus was also photographed from inside the lunar module after the last EVA (I found it ) and also from lunar orbit many tims. Jupiter, Mercury and Venus have also been imaged from lunar orbit, as have Mars and Saturn in cislunar space

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: OneManArmy
Doesnt the atmosphere act as a lens, as displayed by the flickering of stars?
Distorting the dot and making it your classic star shaped. And hence bigger and easier to see.

I dont know, Im not an astronomer, just guessing.

Not so much a lens but a kind of blurry, ever changing filter.

Think of it like looking up beneath a swimming pool. You can see things but they are distorted and "watery".

In astronomy this is called atmospheric scintillation (or simply scintillation) and we astronomers HATE it.

It doesn't really make the stars bigger or easier to see it just makes them blurry/watery which is the flickering we see. Twinkle, twinkle little star, etc...

For this reason, many observatories have installed lasers which create an "artificial star" which can be used to correct for the effect of the atmosphere in the optics of the telescope. This is called adaptive optics.

You have just answered a question that has been bugging me for ages.

Why is there a green laser pointing up into the sky around Greenwich way from time to time?
Id assumed it had something to do with the Dome.

Thank you.

This is So not fair! - I WANNA SEE A HUGE GREEN LASER SHOOTING INTO THE NIGHT SKY !

I have to settle for waiting for the next Star Wars movie. Now I have to go sulk now cus I can't afford to move to Greenwich. LOL If you live in a place that has cool stuff like this going on, You Rock!

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: projectbane

Are there any pics from the moon or mars that clearly show stars like here on Earth?

No. You will never see an image from the Moon or Mars looking like astrophotography shots taken from Earth.

See, you keep producing these absolute statements, but what experimental evidence can you give to support them? Has anyone tried doing true astrophotography from another planet or moon, like we do on Earth? The answer is no. But we do have the Hubble Telescope, and it produces very good images while looking directly into space. (and no, the regular Hubble images don't involve diffraction grating; and wavefront sensors aren't used to convert invisible light into visible)

As to what is going on, Miles Mathis believes the atmosphere diffuses the intense but too small to be detected by eye (angular diameter) of even the nearest star.

Angular diameter defines the ability to resolve, not detect, distant objects. If you can't understand the difference between "detect" and "resolve", then you will keep misleading yourself. Besides, while the atmosphere does diffuse the light somewhat (which is actually undesirable for astronomical observations and photography), the resulting image of the star we see is still too small in angular size to resolve. An object too small to resolve (with the eye or a camera) will still be detectable, and will appear as a point. Humans with the sharpest sight can only just about resolve the Venus' thin crescent.

My model has no photons traversing the vacuum, rather it tavels as UV/EUV/X-ray...

Let me stop you right there and point out that UV and X-ray radiation also travels in the form of photons. There is absolutely no fundamental difference between visible, infrared, radio, UV, X-ray, or gamma radiation except the wavelength or frequency of the EM radiation.

self-focusing, self perpetuating 'bullets', for lack of a better term

Yes, let's invent some nonsensical terms that have nothing to do with actual science to try to keep your theory afloat.

and Hubbles (still classified Shack Hartmann based science, and not the available adaptive optics stuff)optics and the processing software perform the same process as our atmosphere does, creating photons that our eyes or a regular camera can capture.

Nope, the Hubble uses mirrors to focus photons that have already been travelling through space and uses digital sensors (just like the ones in your camera) to convert them to electrical signal. Can you show us the documentation to the contrary?

a reply to: GaryN

I seem to recall your original 'theory' was that it was only an atmosphere that allowed a star to be visible - now you're changing your story. Why is that? Surely nothing to do with you being proved wrong time and time again?

If it is the thin atmosphere of the moon that is preventing stars from becoming visible, then the even thicker atmosphere on Earth should make it all but impossible, no? The atmosphere inside an Apollo command module is considerably less dense than that of Earth - how come they could take photographs of so many stars from inside the command module?

Besides all that, the lunar atmosphere is impossibly thin, we are talking about the outgassing from small pockets inside lunar rock - not enough to interfere with every photon arriving from space.

Thaty aside, the reason you won't see much in the way of astrophotography from the near side is because there is always something preventing it. During the lunar day it is the sun and bright lunar surface, in the lunar night it is the brightly shining Earth. You can get UV images though, which have been successfully taken from the lunar surface, and you can get images from orbit.

What I suggest you do is go out with a camera and take some photographs of stars, as I have and many other people here have, and that way you will begin to get an understanding of the difficulties involved.

On a couple of minor points, Hubble was not the first visible spectrum telescope in space - Hipparcus was (though admittedly by only a year).

Also, they don't use star trackers to take photos of things, they use them for navigation. That said, here is a nice photograph of stars taken by one on the LADEE probe, something you believe is impossible:

www.universetoday.com...

And here's China's UV view of the pinwheel galaxy

news.yahoo.com...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: GaryN

I seem to recall your original 'theory' was that it was only an atmosphere that allowed a star to be visible - now you're changing your story. Why is that? Surely nothing to do with you being proved wrong time and time again?

If it is the thin atmosphere of the moon that is preventing stars from becoming visible, then the even thicker atmosphere on Earth should make it all but impossible, no? The atmosphere inside an Apollo command module is considerably less dense than that of Earth - how come they could take photographs of so many stars from inside the command module?

Besides all that, the lunar atmosphere is impossibly thin, we are talking about the outgassing from small pockets inside lunar rock - not enough to interfere with every photon arriving from space.

GaryN's theory is that the atmosphere makes the visible light. Thus, a much thinner atmosphere on Moon or Mars results in much dimmer stars and also dimmer sunlight.

What I suggest you do is go out with a camera and take some photographs of stars, as I have and many other people here have, and that way you will begin to get an understanding of the difficulties involved.

One could also try to replicate the Apollo photography on the lunar surface by setting their camera to the same ISO, aperture, and exposure settings, and taking photos both in direct sunlight and in shadowed areas. I might actually do this at some point, but what I already know about photography tells me the conditions on the Moon were very sunny indeed.

Stars and planets photographed by Surveyor 1:



From:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: wildespace

GaryN's theory is that the atmosphere makes the visible light. Thus, a much thinner atmosphere on Moon or Mars results in much dimmer stars and also dimmer sunlight.

I can see from re-reading his post that he is not necessarily agreeing with Miles Mathis.

A quick search didn't find it, but here is a photograph using my phone (hence the camera shake) of my own copy of the Surveyor 7 Preliminary report showing the first of a series of long exposures:



The brightest object is Mercury.

As with the picture I posted from Surveyor 1, the objects in view can be confirmed with Astronomy software.

More stars and planets photographed from the lunar surface.

check out this video from the ISS, see how many stars you can see

@wildespace

Curiosity rover did some night sky photography, but because its sensor wasn't made for such purpose, ony few of the brightest stars are visible (along with Phobos and Deimos, and the bright planets like Jupiter). The rest of the image is filled with sensor noise.

You need a specially designed camera to do astrophotography from the Moon?
The camera mas maxed out, of course there will be noise. Another view from Mars of the Earth and Moon, again a long exposure, but no stars. Guess they didn't want to overexpose the Moon or something.
en.wikipedia.org...

See, you keep producing these absolute statements, but what experimental evidence can you give to support them? Has anyone tried doing true astrophotography from another planet or moon, like we do on Earth? The answer is no. But we do have the Hubble Telescope,

If they have done no real astrophotography from the Lunar or Martian surface it is because it looks so lousy, needs long exposures and gets noisy. From Earth, a Canon A60, 2 MP shot. You don't think Chang'e or Curiosity has at least as good a camera? Or it wasn't designed to photograph the stars? That the Chinese said" Oh, were going to the Moon, but lets not think about some astrophotography, waste of time and money?" I doubt it.
www.astropix.com...
Quick Start Guide to Beginner Digital Astrophotography
www.astropix.com...
Forget Hubble, it sees what our eyes never will, and we are talking about human visibility of stars or planets, don't you get that?

@onebigmonkey

Also, they don't use star trackers to take photos of things, they use them for navigation. That said, here is a nice photograph of stars taken by one on the LADEE probe, something you believe is impossible:

Low-Flying Moon Probe Spies Craters And Mountains While Seeking Stars
www.universetoday.com...

Why do you think I think it impossible? Star trackers image stars, but your eyes would not be sensitive enough to see those same stars from LADEEs location.

And here's China's UV view of the pinwheel galaxy

UV. You can see UV? Of course exotic, expensive instruments can see stars, I have never denied that, we are talking about what space would look like to human vision, and away from a planet with no or little atmosphere, it will be pitch black.

@wildespace:

GaryN's theory is that the atmosphere makes the visible light. Thus, a much thinner atmosphere on Moon or Mars results in much dimmer stars and also dimmer sunlight.

Yes, that is correct. And to clarify my statement that photons don't travel the vacuum, which I have been pulled up on before, I mean photons do not travel long distances in the vacuum, so the photons produced (in my model) by Earths atmosphere will fall off at the inverse square rate, meaning that the Chang'e camera could see Earth from the Lunar surface, very dimly (if they washed out Earth would the stars be visible?), but from about 100,000 miles further away from Earth, would not. Yes, the spectral imagers, not cameras, from other missions have seen Earth from further away, but the spectral imagers can see many things our eyes could not.


@onebigmonkey

Stars and planets photographed by Surveyor 1:

Vidicon. Designed for low light sensitivity. Why not have sent a 3 gun, colour, broadcast quality video camera? Because the electron tubes needed a lot of light to function properly, and the light on the Lunar surface, depending on the Suns elevation, is much too feeble, there is light but very little intensity. That's why TSI measurements need performing. They assume the same as at the top of Earths atmosphere, but assumptions are not science.

the Surveyor 7 Preliminary report showing the first of a series of long exposures:

Yes, long exposures, fast film, and the very thin but still present lunar atmosphere, which includes the dust too, and that is the best shot they can get. Again, your eyes would have seen nothing, they can not store photons like a film does, and need a minimum number of photons/sec for not just the eyes, but for the brain to be able to decide that there is something there. The visual perception system is more than just the eyes, and perception enters into what the lunar astronauts could see. One of them did say, "you see what you expect to see", which is likely why Mitchel said the stars were 10 times brighter than when viewed from Earth. His mind had a different interpretation, but it was rather odd that he would have said Armstrong "doesn't know what he is talking about" after Armstrong had said the stars were not visible, as Armstrong was the most knowledgeable of the bunch where astronomy was concerned.

@bigx001

check out this video from the ISS, see how many stars you can see

Taken from the Cupola, which means the line of sight to the stars is looking sideways through Earths atmosphere. Yes, the atmosphere is thinner up there, but there is 10 to 12,000 miles of thin atmosphere to look through, which makes up for the lack of density in the lower atmosphere that we see the stars through when looking up from Earths surface. You need to eliminate all, or most of the atmosphere to test if stars are visible without the atmosphere, which from the ISS means looking outwards, and that can only be done from an EVA. And a study of what is visible on an EVA when looking outwards, away from the Earth, and while on both the day and night portions of orbit so a comparison can be done.

a reply to: GaryN

Why do you persist in this fantasy of yours?

You have repeatedly denied the existence of things that have then been provided to you.

You have been provided with numerous sources of astronauts saying they saw stars (you even quoted one yourself). For every ten quotes describing a stellar view of the universe you cherry pick one that you think proves your point when the context in which it was made proves otherwise.

You have been provided with numerous photographs of stars taken both in space, on the surface of the moon and mars. You reject them because they don't look starry enough for you, or too starry, or it's the wrong sort of camera, or it was a Thursday and you just can't get the hang of Thursdays. You think cameras are the measure of what we can see when anyone who has tried to take pictures of stars knows this is not true.

You have made up a theory, with no basis in fact or evidentiary support, and insist that because no-one has tested your made up theory with an experiment that you think should have been done then therefore your theory is correct and everyone else's science and the evidence of their eyes is wrong.

Go outside, with your camera, on a clear night. Take some photographs of stars - the ones that you can see with your eyes effortlessly. Let us know how you get on.