It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: smurfy
Are not all those Lunokhod pictures phototelevision video sent back via FM by the rovers and orbiters via a in-house made system. Jodrell Bank got picture/s from a signal. Most pictures we got were second generation or worse, scans.
It seems that the pictures received were quite good,
"On February 3, 1966, Luna-9 became the first spacecraft to land on the Moon. On February 4 and 5, it transmitted 3 cycloramic panoramas from an optical-mechanical camera. The camera was developed by A.S. Selivanov and his team at the Institute of Space Device Engineering, and the results were analyzed at the Sternberg Astronomical Institute and by A.I. Lebedinskii at Moscow University. The images were transmitted as analog FM video signals at one stroke per second over a 250 Hz subcarrier (equivalent to 500 pixels/line)"
Moon catalogue,
mentallandscape.com...
These images (link below) have the "Roscosmos" water mark on them, so maybe these are "official" images? (maybe not).
In any case, the images in this link seem very good quality for being transmitted TV images, although they do seem to have the same noise that the OP confused for stars. The noise in the images is consistent, whether it be in the sky (to be confused as stars) or if that noise be on top of objects, such as on top of parts of the rover or on top of the Moon's surface (in which case they would most definitely not be stars).
Lunokhod 2 Images
He didn't ask you to be a broken record, he asked you to identify the stars. You can't, because they aren't stars, not that it's impossible to photograph stars from the moon. You could do it, you just need to set the exposure long enough and then the moon's surface, if it's in the frame at all, would be overexposed.
originally posted by: mrkeen
You are reiterating the same argument, so I will have to repeat the answer.
a reply to: dennisarends
the program that did not recognize any star patters, did it calculate them from the right perspective beeing from the moon everything might just look a little different enough to fall outside its perimeters or something just guessing here. i dont wish do rule out nor proof the stars real in the picture, just saying theres alot of possibilities.
originally posted by: dennisarends
how can the shutters not allow enough light for the stars not to show up.
does light maybe behave differently inside an atmosphere than it does in space, more focussed perhaps, reflecting differently in a mix of light streams falling on the surface of the moon beeing scattered light and the more direct dots falling on its plate. maybe the atmophere slows down light so much it can start to become light
the program that did not recognize any star patters, did it calculate them from the right perspective beeing from the moon everything might just look a little different enough to fall outside its perimeters or something just guessing here.
i dont wish do rule out nor proof the stars real in the picture, just saying theres alot of possibilities.
originally posted by: dennisarends
a reply to: Box of Rain
how can the shutters not allow enough light for the stars not to show up?
originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
This camera could see the stars and galaxies, even with the (some say) bright lunar surface. Long exposures in the far UV region.
www.ninfinger.org...
And here are the images that NASA didn't think worth showing us.
www3.telus.net...
No reason they couldn't have taken long exposures with their Hasselblads too, but they didn't go to the moon to do astrophotography, we can do that from Earth. ;-)
originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
This camera could see the stars and galaxies, even with the (some say) bright lunar surface. Long exposures in the far UV region.
www.ninfinger.org...
Meanwhile, the command module is purring along in grand shape. I have turned the lights up bright, and the cockpit reflects a cheeriness which I want very much to share.
Outside my window I can see stars — and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars. To compare the sensation with something terrestrial, perhaps being alone in a skiff in the middle of the pacific ocean on a pitch-black night would most nearly approximate my situation. In a skiff, one would see bright stars above and black sea below; I see the same stars, minus the twinkling of course, and absolutely nothing below. In each case, time and distance are extremely important factors.
originally posted by: Ove38
Astronaut Michael Collins 1969: " I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY"
Astronaut Niel Armstrong 1970 "THE SKY IS A DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON, AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CIS-LUNAR SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON. THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN THAT CAN BE SEEN."
Source:
02 23 59 20 CDR
Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
02 23 59 52 CC
I guess it has turned into night up there really, hasn't it ?
02 23 59 58 CDR
Really has.
Those images have been publicly available for decades.
originally posted by: ngchunter
a reply to: Ove38
Perhaps when he turned the lights up bright inside the capsule, as he stated he liked to do, he didn't see any. From his book, Carrying the Fire:
Meanwhile, the command module is purring along in grand shape. I have turned the lights up bright, and the cockpit reflects a cheeriness which I want very much to share.
But later on he does say that he did see stars while on the night side of the moon. He is in the moon's shadow at this point, so as long as he turns down the interior lights his eyes can dark adapt and he can see the stars.
Outside my window I can see stars — and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars. To compare the sensation with something terrestrial, perhaps being alone in a skiff in the middle of the pacific ocean on a pitch-black night would most nearly approximate my situation. In a skiff, one would see bright stars above and black sea below; I see the same stars, minus the twinkling of course, and absolutely nothing below. In each case, time and distance are extremely important factors.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: Ove38
Astronaut Michael Collins 1969: " I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY"
Astronaut Niel Armstrong 1970 "THE SKY IS A DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON, AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CIS-LUNAR SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON. THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN THAT CAN BE SEEN."
That all depends. If light from the Sun, Earthshine, or Moonshine was in their field of view and glaring on the windows, or when the cabin lights inside the CM were on, they didn't see any/many stars. However, there were times when they were looking towards total darkness, and the difference in the ability to see stars was striking enough for Armstrong to make a special comment about the difference:
Here is the Apollo 11 transcript:Source:
02 23 59 20 CDR
Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
02 23 59 52 CC
I guess it has turned into night up there really, hasn't it ?
02 23 59 58 CDR
Really has.
www.hq.nasa.gov...