Of course there are stars!

GaryN
Well I've just never seen anybody post anything that convinces me that what those images show could be seen by the human eye, many are in UV or IR, and many more still from instruments that work nothing like the human eye. Now that Chris Hadfield has quite clearly stated it is an endless black out there from an EVA, I'm even more convinced that our eyes will be useless in space.

No, he hasn't.

I realize Hatfield has something similar, as you pointed out in a quote from him that you posted last week:

The contrast of your body and your mind inside ... essentially a one-person spaceship, which is your spacesuit, where you're holding on for dear life to the shuttle or the station with one hand, and you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions. It's like a huge yawning endlessness on your left side and you're in between those two things and trying to rationalize it to yourself and trying to get some work done.

So, yeah...he had said the universe is black -- (ie., "...the bottomless black of the universe and it goes in all directions..."). However, I think that could be more of a poetic description than a literal one. For example, I have heard many other people refer to "the blackness of the night sky" when describing the sky as seen from Earth, but obviously the night sky as seen from earth is not only black (although "blackness" does still describe the sky well -- even when there are stars visible).

GaryN

Well I've just never seen anybody post anything that convinces me that what those images show could be seen by the human eye, many are in UV or IR, and many more still from instruments that work nothing like the human eye. Now that Chris Hadfield has quite clearly stated it is an endless black out there from an EVA, I'm even more convinced that our eyes will be useless in space.

Just to make it really SIMPLE please read.

How the Eye Works. The retina contains two types of cells, called rods and cones. Rods handle vision in low light, and cones handle color vision and detail. When light contacts these two types of cells, a series of complex chemical reactions occurs. The chemical that is formed (activated rhodopsin) creates electrical impulses in the optic nerve.

How a Digital Sensor works. One simplified way to think about the sensor used in a digital camera (or camcorder) is to think of it as having a 2-D array of thousands or millions of tiny solar cells, each of which transforms the light from one small portion of the image into electrons. Both CCD and CMOS devices perform this task using a variety of technologies. The next step is to read the value (accumulated charge) of each cell in the image

If you cannot see the process is the SAME your are just being an A** for the sake of it.

GaryN
Her's another crazy idea I was thinking about. There are hundreds of communicatins satellites in geo-stationary orbits, at about 35,000 kM above Earth. What would we see from them with a video or still camera that used "normal prime lens", that give the closest approximation to what our eyes would see from that distance. The satellites already have high download bandwidth capability, so why not put some inexpensive cameras, a low light HD video camera, and a decent still camera for longer exposures, and just have them viewing the Earth from space and downloading the data in real time.

The sunlit Earth would be too bright for the camera to see the stars. When facing the night side of the Earth, there's a risk that the Sun could be shining directly into the camera, damaging it. It's nice to see our planet from such distance (and there are images like that already), but you wont see any stars, for the reasons I explained above.

BTW, I think Hadfield's account about blackness of space is separate from his account of being on the night side of Earth, so it may have happened on the day side - which explain the blackness, as he was looking at the sunlit Earth just a moment before.

you are inexplicably in between what is just a pouring glory of the world roaring by, silently next to you — just the kaleidoscope of it, it takes up your whole mind. It's like the most beautiful thing you've ever seen just screaming at you on the right side, and when you look left, it's the whole bottomless black of the universe

"The kaleidoscope of it" certainly suggests the sunlit Earth, with all its colours.
twitter.com...

reply to post by wildespace

It's nice to see our planet from such distance (and there are images like that already),

Yes, you are correct, and I only just found that out a short while ago. My images from Celestia are pretty close, except like you say, the stars are not visible. The Sun however does not seem to damage the camera.
DISH NETWORK's EchoStar 11 Satellite
www.givetheworld.com...
5 vids to click on, one with a UFO! Seems like NASA might have bought them out though, too bad.

The other thing I just found out is that the Moon is light grey, no colours, as the MoonKams on the GRAIL mission satellites were all colour cameras, and it flew pretty close to the surface. Now if the Moon is really light grey then it is understandable why it looks so bright from Earth. And NASA tried to tell me it was dark grey/brown with very low albedo.
MoonKam pictures:
www.scaspueblo.com...

As for Chris Hadfield, well, I've though about that some more, and I am going to take him at face value. I now believe it will be so black out there, that to stare out for a few seconds would make you feel like your very soul was being sucked out and turned inside-out, very freaky, which is probably why very few of the astronauts on the list of all EVA missions has ever said much, if anything.
Our eyes will be next to useless in space, too bad for the space 'romantics', but that's the way it is, you'll see. Or not see I suppose.
However, get some IR glasses and the endless black will be seen to be just crammed with an amazing number of objects, as SOFIA has demonstrated from it's 747 mounted telescope.
The bottom left image here shows how SOFIA is much better at seeing objects in IR than the space based telescopes. Can those all be stars? Wow.
coolwiki.ipac.caltech.edu...
And of course they could use devices like the BIPH, which can also see the heavens in IR. So it's not too bad after all for future space cadets, nothing in the visible, but some high-tech specs and the heavens will be filled to the brim.

One can argue that the glare of the moon is the reason no objects were visible.

I do not believe in the apollo moon landings, and I think that they didnt want any stars to show because one can easily then match it to its constellation and reveal the true location of where the image was taken.

HerMisfits
One can argue that the glare of the moon is the reason no objects were visible.

I do not believe in the apollo moon landings, and I think that they didnt want any stars to show because one can easily then match it to its constellation and reveal the true location of where the image was taken.

There is NO glare your eyes always adjust to the brightest object in your field of view, if taking pictures of the surface then stars won't show, if talking a picture to expose for the earth stars won't show all due to exposures required.

The stars are so distant the difference in the look of the constellations would not be enough to see in the picture.

HerMisfits
I do not believe in the apollo moon landings, and I think that they didnt want any stars to show because one can easily then match it to its constellation and reveal the true location of where the image was taken.

As wmd_2008 said above, the difference in the constellations of the Moon would be virtually identical to the constellations as seen from earth (too similar to be able to measure in pictures) .

Consider this:
The Moon and Earth are constantly moving through space anyway -- and as the Earth and Moon move, the change of positions of the stars and constellations cannot be determined just by looking at pictures taken form one week/day/year to the next...

...The Moon is revolving in an orbit abound the earth, sometimes crossing that orbit of the earth. The Earth/moon system is reveloving around the Sun. There could be times during the Earth's orbit around the Sun that the Earth crosses a point that was once occupied by the Moon.

The Earth is in a different location every day/week/month/year...and yet I task you to be able to determine that two regular pictures of the sky taken at different times (i.e., different locations of the Earth due to the Earth's movement) show a visible difference in the locations of the stars. Sure, if you took very precise images and compared them using extremely precise methods and equipment, you may see a difference. Or if your pictures were taken hundreds or thousands of years apart.

HerMisfits
One can argue that the glare of the moon is the reason no objects were visible.

No. It was all about camera exposure settings.

The cameras on the moon had exposure times that were set to (generally, but not quite) daylight-like settings -- i.e., shutter speeds that are similar to shutter speeds you would use on earth during the day. That's because the moon was relatively bright, and the shutter speeds needed to be relatively fast so the pictures of the astronauts on the surface would not be overexposed.

So, imagine you had a camera on Earth with shutter speeds that are almost set to daylight settings. Now, go outside on the starriest of nights and take a picture of the night sky using those same exposure settings. You will find that hardly any stars (if any at all) would show up in the picture, because the fast shutter speed/exposure setting.

GaryN
The other thing I just found out is that the Moon is light grey, no colours

I'm sorry, but the Moon does have colours.
www.mikeoates.org...
www.space.com...
the-moon.wikispaces.com...



[saturation-enhanced image]


And it's light in some places, and dark in other places, not uniform. The maria are basaltic, and are as dark as graphite, coal, or asphalt. The full moon looks so bright because we usually see it against the dark night sky, and also because of the opposition effect.

The overall albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, same as worn asphalt.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by wildespace

I'm sorry, but the Moon does have colours.

But those were some pretty high-tech cameras they used, colour cameras, so how come the Moon looks so bright and grey? Over exposure? Surely they know enough to get exposure settings correct by now?

GaryN
reply to post by wildespace

 

I'm sorry, but the Moon does have colours.

But those were some pretty high-tech cameras they used, colour cameras, so how come the Moon looks so bright and grey? Over exposure? Surely they know enough to get exposure settings correct by now?

The camera most probably used auto-exposure and auto white-balance. Anyhoo, you're basing your view on one camera, I'm basing my view on decades of observation and study, personal observation (I saw a hint of blue in Mare Tranquilitatis, using binoculars), and the fact that the Moon's surface varies in mineral composition. You only have to look through a telescope at the border between the seas of Tranquility and Serenity, or at the plateau by the Aristachus crater, to see the reddish or blueish colouration quite clearly.

Here's a video of a RocketCam view from a rocket launch. It is looking straight into the Sun, yet the EArth and the colours of the rocket are good and do not change. On auto exposure, it should have irised right down because of the Sun. When the Sun sets towards the end of the vid, the colours are good. The image is sharp and clear. Compare that with what the MoonKam sees. The MoonKams are RocketCams, with extended IR sensitivity from what I can find out, which isn't much. So I'd have to say, in Lunar orbit those cameras were maxed out exposure wise, the contrast become monochrome, and it was probably shooting IR. The light on and around the Moon is too dim for a colour video camera to function properly, even form a company like Ecliptic.
www.youtube.com...=90

More videos:
www.eclipticenterprises.com...

GaryN
Here's a video of a RocketCam view from a rocket launch. It is looking straight into the Sun, yet the EArth and the colours of the rocket are good and do not change. On auto exposure, it should have irised right down because of the Sun.

How do you know it is on auto-exposure? The lack of change is strongly suggestive of it not being on 'auto'. YOu can also see that the area on which the camera is focussed is brightly lit the whole way through even when the sun goes down, so any auto setting will be taking its cue from that as well.

When the Sun sets towards the end of the vid, the colours are good. The image is sharp and clear. Compare that with what the MoonKam sees. The MoonKams are RocketCams,

How do you know this?

with extended IR sensitivity from what I can find out,

No. You either shoot in IR or you don't.

which isn't much.

uh-huh...

So I'd have to say, in Lunar orbit those cameras were maxed out exposure wise, the contrast become monochrome, and it was probably shooting IR.

No. Go get a camera and take a picture of the moon at maximum exposure. Report back.

The light on and around the Moon is too dim for a colour video camera to function properly

No. Wrong. False. Incorrect.

GaryN
The light on and around the Moon is too dim for a colour video camera to function properly.

The albedo of the Moon for the areas being explored by the Apollo astronauts was similar to an old asphalt parking lot. Consider what a parking lot looks like on a sunny day.

So with the sun shining on the moon, the light was more than sufficient for the video camera to function properly.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

How do you know it is on auto-exposure? The lack of change is strongly suggestive of it not being on 'auto'. YOu can also see that the area on which the camera is focussed is brightly lit the whole way through even when the sun goes down, so any auto setting will be taking its cue from that as well.

Me:
When the Sun sets towards the end of the vid, the colours are good. The image is sharp and clear. Compare that with what the MoonKam sees. The MoonKams are RocketCams,

How do you know this?

Did you look at all at the eclipticenterprises site? The page is title RocketCam videos, the MoonKam video is on that page. The camera is specified to have automatic gain control. Wake up.


@SGIP

So with the sun shining on the moon, the light was more than sufficient for the video camera to function properly.

Well theres your problem. The Sun does not shine on the Moon, the suns ENERGY creates light by interacting with the atoms/electrons in the Moons thin atmosphere, much like airglow happens in Earths atmosphere. The Moon having such a thin atmosphere though means that the kight created is very 'thin', weak, feeble. If the lunar surface was very bright, then an old-school photographer would be going by the "Sunny 16" rule, and if bright enough would be using f22, with an ASA 100 film. Earthshine would provide just as much if not more light than the Sun, on the lunar surface. All the info is available if you take the time to look into all the NASA technical reports going back as far as the late 50's.
Sunny 16 rule
en.wikipedia.org...

Also, with film, the processing is just as important as the exposure, and those films were very 'easy' to use, as any under/over exposure could be adjusted for during processing to give the best images. Please keep in mind that I learned my photography in the late 60's, and my teacher was an ex-RAF aerial photography technician, and even back then infra-red was used extensively, some UV, and the films they used were incredible as far as resolution and dynamic range. One of the films they used on the Apollo missions could be exposed with almost any settings and still be processed at the same settings. The atronauts needed such capabilities as the light on the Moon presents great challenges in trying to determine the best exposure settings.

reply to post by GaryN


In your theory, how high above the Moon exactly does the Moon's atmosphere thin out too much for it to create the light that we see? The reason I ask is because we could see the LEM and the CM lit up in space in pictures and movie footage taken in orbit around the moon...


...HOWEVER, let's forget about that for now.
Instead, let's stipulate that you are right, and that the reason we sea the moon, stars, etc is because the photons react with the atmosphere, and that without atmosphere to cause that reaction we would not see the photons, and we would not see the Sun, Stars, and moon (I don't think you ARE right, but for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that you are).

...So then, what about fluids (the vitreous humor and aqueous humor) in our eyes? Could it be possible that those fluids could make photons visible, so that the Sun, Moon, and stars when seen with our eyes would be visible?

If so, then by definition, we can see stars with our eyes, even without atmosphere.
If not, then why not?

reply to post by GaryN


Have a look at this image taken inside a vacuum chamber so NO atmosphere for light to interact with.

In a vacuum

pressure down to 0.01 mm of mercury

Care to explain the bright clear image which WOULD not happen if any of your claims were true!!!!!

GaryN
Me:
The MoonKams are RocketCams,

I actually wasn't aware of this and it was a failure on my part to check. I am happy to stnd corrected.

Did you look at all at the eclipticenterprises site? The page is title RocketCam videos, the MoonKam video is on that page. The camera is specified to have automatic gain control. Wake up.

As above - I looked at the colour video, I didn't check the rest of the site. Mea culpa.

However.

Are the two cameras the same? The company make a variety of sensors with different sensitivies and capabilities. The two cameras were not operating in the same environment - the moon is considerably less reflective than the Earth, and therefore there is less light.

Well theres your problem. The Sun does not shine on the Moon, the suns ENERGY creates light by interacting with the atoms/electrons in the Moons thin atmosphere, much like airglow happens in Earths atmosphere. The Moon having such a thin atmosphere though means that the kight created is very 'thin', weak, feeble. If the lunar surface was very bright, then an old-school photographer would be going by the "Sunny 16" rule, and if bright enough would be using f22, with an ASA 100 film.

The lunar atmosphere is not adequate to generate the light you see, it is purely a product of surface albedo. Maybe you should have checked out the 'looney 11' rule:

en.wikipedia.org...

Earthshine would provide just as much if not more light than the Sun, on the lunar surface.

No. Wrong. You can see Earthshine quite readily from Earth and it is self-evidently not as bright as the sunlight. Apollo photographers had to use special f1.2 lenses to get usable images of the lunar surface in Earthshine.

Also, with film, the processing is just as important as the exposure, and those films were very 'easy' to use, as any under/over exposure could be adjusted for during processing to give the best images. Please keep in mind that I learned my photography in the late 60's, and my teacher was an ex-RAF aerial photography technician, and even back then infra-red was used extensively, some UV, and the films they used were incredible as far as resolution and dynamic range. One of the films they used on the Apollo missions could be exposed with almost any settings and still be processed at the same settings. The atronauts needed such capabilities as the light on the Moon presents great challenges in trying to determine the best exposure settings.

The light on the moon does indeed present great challenges, as it is very easy to over-expose images. The apollo astronauts had a lot of photographic training, and also checked with the ground for appropriate settings for any set of photographic circumstances.

GaryN
If the lunar surface was very bright, then an old-school photographer would be going by the "Sunny 16" rule, and if bright enough would be using f22, with an ASA 100 film. Earthshine would provide just as much if not more light than the Sun, on the lunar surface. All the info is available if you take the time to look into all the NASA technical reports going back as far as the late 50's.
Sunny 16 rule
en.wikipedia.org...

Luckily, we know what settings the Apollo Hasselblads used. sterileeye.com...

The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun.

The film ISO was 160. www.oregonl5.org...
So although they used a slightly lower ƒ setting for bright scenes (11 instead of the "sunny" 16), they also used a relatively short exposure time, 1/250.

On the Moon, though, you're supposed to use a different rule: Looney 11. This rule calls for ƒ/11 and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed. Since they used ISO 160 film, shutter speed of 1/250 was actually quite fast, quashing your proposal that the light on the Moon is very weak.

ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow also sounds quite reasonable, given such fast shutter speed (which was the same on all surface photos).