Astronaut Scott Kelly captures sunrise over western US.. And stars are showing behind sun

a reply to: wildespace

wow. *panties status: wet*
/cheeky

that is amazing.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has never seen these.
cheers.


again, all I know about space exploration tech is what I learned 15yrs ago.so I'm speechless when I see low rez sh ite from NASA, because I'm my mind we re eons ahead...

I really hate being in the scientific field and be so ill-informed about astronomy. (i'll design a mean circuit board or telemetry pipeline though)
great vids.

originally posted by: charolais
Beautiful pictures. Thank you for sharing


Call me old school, but I think the amount of light visible on Earth is a little depressing... but to each their own.

My thoughts exactly. There's so much light we're lucky we can see the stars from the ground.

And since I've proven that I don't know jack about jack, my question is what is the difference between the orange light and the blue light on the surface.

originally posted by: chrisss

And since I've proven that I don't know jack about jack, my question is what is the difference between the orange light and the blue light on the surface.

Mercury and sodium vapor lights

a reply to: Spacespider

Love it fantastic pic
q

originally posted by: GaryN
Well the Sony A7S should be tried, as it will capture stars in real time, but again, it needs the top-side EVA to look into deep space.

You can see the edge of the atmosphere in the video. The stars don't get dimmer or disappear beyond that line. You are dismissed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
There's not an exact line where the atmosphere ends, but the density drops off so rapidly that you can see an "edge" to the atmosphere in the OP photo and the moon is just above it. I mean just look at the OP photo, it shows the atmosphere pretty well, doesn't it?

Yeah, it does, which puts the lie to all of Gary's claims.

a reply to: PorteurDeMort

how miniscule we as individuals are, in the big scheme of things.

Or put another way

how miraculous we are to have put man into space and get such great shots

GaryN all repeat ALL cameras capture the stars real time what you mean for the Sony A7S is realtime video ie not timelapse I even have a thread about it.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
a reply to: GaryN

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: wmd_2008
do a quick google search

that pic must have had like a 3 min exposure to capture all those stars

Total BS

Do a quick ATS search for calling all astrophotographers and see how msny pictures only a few seconds long show lots of stars in fact last night I got a shot of the ISS low in the sky 15 sec exposure it shows as a white streak and you will see stars in the background and it wasn't at f1.4 and iso 8000 like the op picture

mobile problem will post later.

a reply to: olaru12

Imagine how much better the technology, between the Apollo cameras and what they have on the ISS.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

how miniscule we as individuals are, in the big scheme of things.

Or put another way

how miraculous we are to have put man into space and get such great shots

Thank you...man alive ATSers are a bunch of pessimits

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

how miniscule we as individuals are, in the big scheme of things.

Or put another way

how miraculous we are to have put man into space and get such great shots

Thank you...man alive ATSers are a bunch of pessimits

Right?! The urge to dump all over ANYTHING man does around here is genuinely sad. Especially the tech bashing. Irony: Some guy using the Interweb to bash technology, lol. . .

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: [post=19688691]wmd_2008
The picture in the OP is taken with a wide aperture f1.4 lets in lots of light far more than the Moon shots, iso 8000 way more sensative than the film used on the Moon it's that simple.

does that mean we'll be seeing many stars in pics taken from outer space from now on since we know how it can be done?
is this the last time this camera will be used by astronauts?

You could ALWAYS do it it's down to exposure the Nikon D4 and D4S used for these shots have been on the ISS for a while.

If you expose for bright objects ie surface of the Moon/Earth then stars don't show expose for stars and the Moon/Earth is over exposed, it really is that simple.

Amazing, inspiring & beautiful. I love shots like this. So much colour and beauty in one image. Space is something man should be putting their heads together and venturing out into.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

how miniscule we as individuals are, in the big scheme of things.

Or put another way

how miraculous we are to have put man into space and get such great shots

Thank you...man alive ATSers are a bunch of pessimits

Right?! The urge to dump all over ANYTHING man does around here is genuinely sad. Especially the tech bashing. Irony: Some guy using the Interweb to bash technology, lol. . .

i know...i try not to get pissed off by it, but i cant help it sometimes. Mankind is doing INCREDIBLE things these days...and some things that we dont even see. Do people here know whats happening with raising the superconducting temperature? No...but one day, we will have room temperature superconductors... and no one will bat an eyelid. "What? We didnt always have this?"

the large hadron collider is in my opinion the most amazing machine ever built by man (i wanted to work there while i studied physics in the 90s) and people on ATS just treat it like some sort of expensive laser or something..for creating sinkholes or changing the weather.

It's because we are now inside the sun and the sun you see is just a holographic projection.Cannot say more or I'll have to kill ya lol

a reply to: ngchunter

You can see the edge of the atmosphere in the video. The stars don't get dimmer or disappear beyond that line. You are dismissed.

There is still thin atmosphere out to many thousands of miles, and as I have explained about the viewing geometry, the line of sight from the ISS cupola to either the Moon or the stars goes through a much longer column of atmosphere, thinner for sure, but made up for by the increased length of the viewing path. If the Earth is in view at all from the Cupola, you are viewing through the atmosphere. Looking away from the Earth is the only decent test, though as there is still some very thin atmosphere above the ISS, a long enough exposure and high ISO will likely still show something, but your eyes would not see anything.

@CB328

I'm pretty sure they're fake, I guess we'll find out when China goes there.

They are there, Chang'e 3, and I believe this image of Earth is not fake.
planetary.s3.amazonaws.com...
But, the camera is quite capable of doing some astrophotography, and with nothing else to do during the night periods, wouldn't you think they would have imaged the planets or stars? I'm patient, I can wait until the next manned mission to the Moon, and see if they agree with Armstrong, that the stars are not visible.
The UV camera can see some stars, but your eyes can't see UV, so nothing would be visible there.
www.spaceflight101.com...

@wmd_2008

GaryN all repeat ALL cameras capture the stars real time what you mean for the Sony A7S is realtime video ie not timelapse I even have a thread about it.

Yes, meant video. NASA is so boring though, wouldn't you think they would let an EVA astronaut take an A7S out and have a little fun, just see what it is capable of?

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: ngchunter

You can see the edge of the atmosphere in the video. The stars don't get dimmer or disappear beyond that line. You are dismissed.

There is still thin atmosphere out to many thousands of miles,

There is a low density of gas everywhere in space. Space is never a perfect vacuum. If your claim were correct then the stars should suddenly and dramatically dim when you get past the thickest part of the atmosphere which is clearly visible in the videos. You don't. Your claim is wrong. You are dismissed.

a reply to: GaryN

We have shown lots of images from millions of miles looking back at the Earth and you always make up some BS excuse.