Of course there are stars!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
LOOK I am tired of playing wack a mole with you gophers.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't wish to address the evidence that's out there.

You go on and on for the entire page about how you can't find a photo of the Earth from the Moon, but when they've been shown to you. You're too tired to continue the discussion... I believe this is generally what one would refer to as a "cop out". Good job!

Wooo hooo the cop out is you not posting the photo you are so PROUD of.
Come on brother give me a huckle chuckle.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Wooo hooo the cop out is you not posting the photo you are so PROUD of.

What photo am I so proud of? I don't recall mentioning a specific one.

But like I said. There are photos of the Earth taken from the Lunar surface on Apollo's 11, 14 and 17. And tons taken from Lunar orbit and on the way to and from the Moon on all the missions. So there should be a good variety for you to check the "distance, topography, declination and orientation".

Here's a site that I like to use when I need to search through entire Apollo film magazines quickly: Apollo Image Atlas

If I mentioned a specific photo for discussion I would have posted it. But I didn't. I'm not going to go through every magazine for every mission and post all the photos for you. If you're really serious about all this, then you can do that yourself. I do it all by myself, every time I need to find a specific photo.

Originally posted by GaryN

THERE'S NO COLOR THERE! THEY'RE MONOCHROME IMAGES!

Take a Valium ngchunter, and stop shouting, I'm right here!
Monochrome means shades of one colour. White is a mix of all colours. So what colour is gray? Or is that the colour of the electrons from the CCD?

Oh I see, you think you're cute. You're not. Learn proper terminology. Calling a monochrome image "false color" is beyond ignorant. A monochrome image, by definition, cannot be false color as it does not have a color channel. Learn basic photography, come back when you've done that and can use the terminology properly.

Yes, with long enough exposure and ultra-sensitive instruments.

Neither the exposure nor the sensitivity are any different than what is used by astrophotographers on earth. It's the same.

Nobody is claiming the stars don't exist. I am claiming you could not see them if you were out there with the probe/craft.

And you are wrong, as I have proven.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Wooo hooo the cop out is you not posting the photo you are so PROUD of.

What photo am I so proud of? I don't recall mentioning a specific one.

But like I said. There are photos of the Earth taken from the Lunar surface on Apollo's 11, 14 and 17. And tons taken from Lunar orbit and on the way to and from the Moon on all the missions. So there should be a good variety for you to check the "distance, topography, declination and orientation".

Here's a site that I like to use when I need to search through entire Apollo film magazines quickly: Apollo Image Atlas

If I mentioned a specific photo for discussion I would have posted it. But I didn't. I'm not going to go through every magazine for every mission and post all the photos for you. If you're really serious about all this, then you can do that yourself. I do it all by myself, every time I need to find a specific photo.

Ah yes you are correct. You are not proud cause your powder is wetter than the Thresher's. The woosies here are postin all kinds of crap photography and you or your wack a mole cronnies are dead in the water when it comes to this
===============================================================================
Quote from jra

But it was done. There are photos of the Earth (out of focus, but still the Earth) from Apollo 17. There are also photos of a crescent Earth taken on Apollo 14, which also contain Venus, albeit very faint. And a few on Apollo 11 that are fairly clear.

But you still don't seem to get the fact that it's harder for an astronaut in a bulky suit to tilt backwards so he can aim the camera up into the Lunar sky. It's not worth falling on your back to get a shot of the Earth.

Yeah proud NOT. I am NASA, I have fallen and can't get up. LMAO

Learn proper terminology. Calling a monochrome image "false color" is beyond ignorant.

en.wikipedia.org...

If we can see stars from space, then what about the closest star, good ol' Sol?
Ever seen a picture of the Sun from the ISS? No need to worry about long exposures or motion blur. Of course you would need a filter as according to conventinal wisdom, it would be fiercly bright, but a simple Neutral Density filter of the correct rating will do it, and retain the colour, where as many Solar filters will give it an odd colour.
Here is one example, taken from Earth. Does it look the same from space?
200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.
mcalisterium.files.wordpress.com...

So find an image of the Sun, from the ISS, looking the same. Filter manufacturers have assured me their filters work just the same in space as they do on Earth. No doubt I'll hear that there are images of the Sun from space, and be shown the distorted white blob peeking overthe limb of the Earth. No, I want to see a 'mid day' Sun, not a 'rising' or 'setting' Sun.
And don't point me to all those SOHO or other instrument images. They are not cameras, and show the Sun at many wavelengths the eye can not see.
Maybe they can not see the Sun from the ISS, other than close to the Earth. Maybe there are no windows looking out into deep space, as the Sun coming through them would overwhelm the air conditioning system? Well, what about on an EVA. Or do they never go out in the noonday Sun, unlike us mad Englishmen? Maybe that's my problem, too much Sun??
And what colour is the Sun, seen from space? The yellow we see from Earth? I'd bet that if the Sun were visible from the ISS, it would be a small pink dot, but don't expect NASA to ever try and take a picture, they won't do it. I'm hoping I can convince one of the private enterprises who will be taking supplies to the ISS to at least have a go.
What colour is the Sun?
casa.colorado.edu...
Of course, opinion varies, even among the experts. I'm sure they are all right though, being experts. Orr maybe it's really monochrome?

Originally posted by GaryN

Learn proper terminology. Calling a monochrome image "false color" is beyond ignorant.

en.wikipedia.org...

Good job, you can link wikipedia. Now let me know when you've studied photography and know the difference between a monochrome and a false color image.

If we can see stars from space, then what about the closest star, good ol' Sol?

I already proved you're wrong. I will not allow you to move the goalpost.

Ever seen a picture of the Sun from the ISS?

Yes, plenty. No, I'm not going to dig them up for you, I already proved you wrong.

Of course you would need a filter as according to conventinal wisdom, it would be fiercly bright, but a simple Neutral Density filter of the correct rating will do it, and retain the colour, where as many Solar filters will give it an odd colour.

No, I don't think astronauts have time to do solar astronomy in the middle of 8 hour choreographed spacewalks with wall to wall maintenance tasks, nor do they care that some bizarre conspiracy theorist believes they can't see the sun. They don't care, nor should they.

So find an image of the Sun, from the ISS, looking the same.

NO! I already proved you wrong, that's all there is to it, you don't get to move the goalposts!

Originally posted by GaryN

~snip~

So find an image of the Sun, from the ISS, looking the same. Filter manufacturers have assured me their filters work just the same in space as they do on Earth. No doubt I'll hear that there are images of the Sun from space, and be shown the distorted white blob peeking overthe limb of the Earth. No, I want to see a 'mid day' Sun, not a 'rising' or 'setting' Sun.
And don't point me to all those SOHO or other instrument images. They are not cameras, and show the Sun at many wavelengths the eye can not see.

How about a video instead? Here is a video taken on board the ISS. The shots were taken on March 31, 2012. At 0:30 you can see the sun come into view. It does "set" as the ISS moves around the Earth and then blocks the sun, but for a good chunk of time, you can see the sun quite clearly. In color.

No "distorted blob" "peeking over the edge of the Earth". But a sun just like we see standing here on the Earth. A sun shown in many movies and TV shows too.



Here is the original source for the video, you can download it in 1080 HD from this link. Just scroll down to where it says "Southern Ocean to New Zealand" and look to the right for the links:

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth

And for those that can't watch the video (or don't feel like it), here is a screen grab for you to see:



ETA: BTW - notice how once the light from the sun hits the camera, things that were bright before, dim quite a bit. A perfect example of how a bright light source will make autoexposure automatically compensate for more light, making things go dark. A very bright looking Earth is too much light for the camera to capture the light of stars. Then the sun comes into the FOV and you can REALLY forget seeing faint star light as even the Earth appears to go dim, a perfect example exposures.

what is the reason that some here don't believe that the sun/stars can be seen from outer space?

@ eriktheawful

but for a good chunk of time, you can see the sun quite clearly. In color.

I downloaded the high-res images, and how you can say you see the Sun quite clearly, I don't know. I do not see the Sun at all, the Sun is round and supposedly yellow. And what are all the little bits, stars?
That is supposedly optically perfect glass in the Cupola. Do they need to go out and clean the windows?
www3.telus.net...
When I see an image of the Sun through an ND filter, looking like it does from Earth, then I'll shut up.
And you will never see a real video of the Sun from space either, just a movie made from stills. With a filter, you can video the Sun from Earth, why not from the ISS? NASA, Never A Satisfactory Answer.

what is the reason that some here don't believe that the sun/stars can be seen from outer space? Text

Well Hellhound604, without a poll, I think I might be the only one on ATS that doesn't believe what NASA says, or shows!. Under a Scientific Inquisition, none of their "proof" would hold up. The easiest way to determine the truth is for NASA to send an astronaut out on an EVA, with one of their D3 cameras with a ND filter, and with the Sun well away from the Earth, take a picture. Of course a serious Court would want to see a video of the the astronaut taking the picture, and a video of the Sun too.
And to be clear, I do believe the stars can be seen from the Moon, and space, with the right equipment.

www3.telus.net...
They do monitor the Sun, and sunspots from the ISS, just not with a camera. Cant be done.
Solspec.


solspec.projet.latmos.ipsl.fr...

Originally posted by GaryN
@ eriktheawful

but for a good chunk of time, you can see the sun quite clearly. In color.

I downloaded the high-res images, and how you can say you see the Sun quite clearly, I don't know. I do not see the Sun at all, the Sun is round and supposedly yellow. And what are all the little bits, stars?
That is supposedly optically perfect glass in the Cupola. Do they need to go out and clean the windows?
www3.telus.net...
When I see an image of the Sun through an ND filter, looking like it does from Earth, then I'll shut up.

And you will never see a real video of the Sun from space either, just a movie made from stills. With a filter, you can video the Sun from Earth, why not from the ISS? NASA, Never A Satisfactory Answer.

Windows have 2 sides. One in, one out. The one in is exposed to the environment of the ISS. Condensation can form, things to get touched and smudged.

Not quite sure why you are so hung up on them using a ND filter. The point of the OP is why you can see stars in some pictures taken in space, and why you can NOT see stars taken in space. The entire reason is exposure times.

Not a ND Filter.

Exposure times of film and CCD's vary depending upon the shot that someone wants to take.

This shot was a frame exposed for 15 seconds, using a SLR camera and a 50mm lens, no filter.



This shot was taken at 17 seconds, same camera and lens, again, no filter, however you can see the trees lit up quite well from the street light. They looked pitch black to my eyes at the time:



And this shot of the moon was taken through my telescope at 1/50 of a second. Note the over exposure of the moon's surface, and the LACK of star light. Exposure time was too fast to capture starlight at all.



So again, I'm not too sure why you are banging on about a ND filter. It proves nothing. The sun is really there.

What do you think that is going past the ISS observation window and lighting up the Earth and station? The solar system's biggest flash light?

Hi.

Professional Photographer & Videographer here. 4 years college, 6 years hobby, 4 years industry experience.

You can see stars from space. You can photograph them from space. You can see everything there without twinkle. It is just a matter of appropriate equipment and camera settings. Naked eyes can see it just fine if you do not have a large bright object in your view (solar panels, earth, moon, sun, etc.)

Also, the whole "no stars seen without atmosphere!!!" stuff I see, this makes no sense. Since...

STAR->SPACE->Window/Helmet Visor->Sea Level Pressure AIR->Eyes... its the same with sound. You don't properly hear sound in space, but if something hits your vessel you will hear that impact. You can hear the hum of your own engines. You can hear other engines because the particles blown off their thrust hit your vessel. It is the same with light... If still has to go through air to get to your eyes in space suit or ship... not that this matters because if your eyes were in dead-vaccum and magically NOT frozen into ice...you would still see stars.

CCDs, Retinas, etc. Detect the photons themselves leaving an object emitting or reflecting light. Not their interaction with the environment about them though that can be seen to (reflection, refraction, etc.)

I promise you, if I could send my camera gear into space away from ANY objects, I could get you nice "star" photos no problem at all. Even with right filters, the sun too.

Oh and speaking of the sun... You are NOT supposed to aim your camera at the noon sun (most brightest of the day) because the light and radiation over-whelms your CCD (and blind your eye instantly...) and in space? It is even more intense. You need very strong filters on your lense to even look at the sun without frying your digital camera or eyes. Playing with on-board settings might work on Earth (trust me it is still, over time, damaging your camera. I've done it before...) but it won't save you in the raw-exposure of Sol's majesty.

You CAN take photos of the sun with your camera, but over time it will take damage. Noon just does it faster. Space, even quicker. Near instant. Which is why you DO NOT aim your camera at the sun....

@ eriktheawful

So again, I'm not too sure why you are banging on about a ND filter.

I'd accept an image showing a disk with sunspots through any solar filter, even in monochrome ;-) but then we would not see the Suns true colour. The ND supposedly reduces the level of all wavelengths equally, so we still see the colour as it really is.
The true colour of the Sun is very important, to me. Much of astronomy and astrophysics is based on the colour and magnitude of the stars. If we do not know the true colour of our Sun, how can we claim to know the true colour of the others? And then it's all "out the window" as far as distance calculations go.
I know I'm battling a pretty strong headwind here, but until I see what should be a very simple shot to take, showing me the Sun as we have come to accept it, I won't be convinced. All these years of space flight and nobody has 1/8000 at f/23 to spare to take a snap of the object that dominates our existence, well, I don't buy it.

Originally posted by Hellhound604
what is the reason that some here don't believe that the sun/stars can be seen from outer space?

Well it helps to reinforce thier beliefs that we didn't go to the Moon, its a bit like the other theories that have been shot down ever since the wack jobs started their BS re Apollo.

Originally posted by GaryN
Well, looks like you guys really know your stuff. Thanks for those replies. So I'm in the right place to ask another couple of questions that have puzzled me lately.
Image ISS006-E-28069. What is going on here, why does Canopus seem to have moved around like crazy, but the other stars didn't?
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
This one shows stars above the Earth. Or does it? How come there are what look like stars in front of the Earth?
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Hi Just noticed this post looking through the thread.

First one. Well since MANY faint stars are shown here on the pic with Canopus its a long exposure so it looks like the camera was bumped probably at the start or near the end of the exposure.

Second one. Digital cameras have problems with sensor noise if the iso rating is up high you can get problems also look up hot pixels.

reply to post by GaryN


This is what happens when you point a digital camera, iphone etc to picture the sun (sensor overload)




See more examples here!

www.flickr.com...

Then when the internet fruit cake wack jobs see a picture like this a new Nibiru thread starts

Originally posted by GaryN
@ eriktheawful

So again, I'm not too sure why you are banging on about a ND filter.

I'd accept an image showing a disk with sunspots through any solar filter, even in monochrome ;-) but then we would not see the Suns true colour. The ND supposedly reduces the level of all wavelengths equally, so we still see the colour as it really is.
The true colour of the Sun is very important, to me. Much of astronomy and astrophysics is based on the colour and magnitude of the stars. If we do not know the true colour of our Sun, how can we claim to know the true colour of the others? And then it's all "out the window" as far as distance calculations go.
I know I'm battling a pretty strong headwind here, but until I see what should be a very simple shot to take, showing me the Sun as we have come to accept it, I won't be convinced. All these years of space flight and nobody has 1/8000 at f/23 to spare to take a snap of the object that dominates our existence, well, I don't buy it.

If you take photo's of the sun with a ND-filter, you need one with a transmission coefficient of 0.00001. That is what you achieve with a filter, like the Baader planetarium filter. This is called "White light" solar photography. Whilst it is great to see sunspots, you cannot see details on the sun with it, as the spectrum of light obscures any fine details. That is why solar telescopes are very expensive. They have a very narrow filter (typically on the Hydrogen-alpha emission line of the sun, or even more expensive, the Calcium filters). With these you can see fine grained details. This means that only the "white light" filters gives you a true indication of the sun's color. With Ha filters you get a red sun, and with the Ca filter you get a purple sun. Of course, a monochrome camera gives you a lot more detail than a color camera, and that is why most "color" pictures of the sun are taken in monochrome light, and after image processing, converted to a "normal" sun-color. So, if you are fooled by pictures of the sun, thinking that it is the natural color of the sun, you are very mistaken.

(Of course, professional observatories can observe at a lot more wavelengths, but the principle remains the same. To resolve details on the sun, you need a couple of very narrow filters).

You can read a lot more details here : Solar Observing

Hi Hellhound604,
I'd be interested to hear if you think that with an appropriate filter on one of the Apollo cameras, it would be possible to get a recognisable image of the Sun, either from lunar orbit, or from the surface?
If exactly the same camera, filter and settings were used in space as in the image from Earth I linked to earlier mcalisterium.files.wordpress.com...
would the results be the same, or would the lack of atmosphere mean you would need to go down a few stops more?
I was interested in the ND filter, as that was what I was told would be needed, in an E-Mail response from NPS in Monterey, so I am tempted to believe them. As to why there are no photos of the Sun available, they did not provide any information.
The only time I see an ND filter mentioned in relationship to the Apollo missions was in the assessing of the LM pilots ability to be able to see well enough to land in the Moons very low light levels. With various filters they simulated landing in the Earthshine levels they would encounter.
Google search 19750065843_1975065843.pdf to get to the report.

reply to post by GaryN


The lack of atmosphere wouldn't be a problem the atmosphere doesn't cut out enough light to worry about, if you look at exposure times for pictures of the Moon even though the sunlight is reflected from the moon and has to travel through our atmosphere exposure times are similar to daylight shots on earth!

reply to post by GaryN


Please explain why, during the Apollo missions, there would be any emphasis, at all, on taking pictures of the Sun?

This makes no sense, whatsoever.