Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: GaryN

perhaps they DID rotate the station so that when they took the supposed Zenith shots, they were still in the Cupola but looking sideways, not out! Wouldn't put it past NASA at all!

sigh

the right ascencion and declination of the moon can be calculated for the date // time the image was taken . demonstrating exactly what angle [ relative to the earths core ] the station was at

but as you move the goal posts everythime one fact is explained to you - would it actually be any use to assist you with this ?

I use Stellarium, and a very simple and fairly quick method to learn where the Moon was relative to the ISS, by plugging the "nadir coordinates" into the Stellarium location window, and setting the same time and date the photo was taken (just make sure it's in GMT).

a reply to: wildespace

I use Stellarium, and a very simple and fairly quick method to learn where the Moon was relative to the ISS, by plugging the "nadir coordinates" into the Stellarium location window, and setting the same time and date the photo was taken (just make sure it's in GMT).

Thanks wildespace, I haven't used Stellarium, for some reason I thought it wan not available on Linux, but see it is. I couldn't see how to do that on Celestia, and will need to be able to, in order to refine my model of what is going on with the NASA experiment, which I am fairly certain now that I have figured out.
They didn't need to play with the ISS positioning and cheat that way, and the fact that they uncovered their precious Zenith port for the experiment shows just how important this experiment was to the Military, er, NASA.
It is to do with the ionosphere/plasmasphere, and structures that remain stable up there long enough for them to use for the experiments.
There is lots going on up there above the ISS:
www.albany.edu...
www.albany.edu...
There are plasma bubbles up there too, and they can remain stable at certain times of day, mostly when being bombarded by solar radiation. Solar radiation passing through those bubbles can increase the production of light at certain wavelengths, and the UV or even x-rays generated in the lunar ionosphere
upload.wikimedia.org...
will also be made visible under certain Earth ionosphere conditions, or through one of those plasma bubbles.
So NASA knows where to find the bubbles, and timed the experiment to be able to see through one of those bubbles. The image that is dark shows that the bubble has extents, and outside of those extents there is less light being created, so the Moon becomes less visible. The fading of the Moon in the shots from the Cupola indicates that the effect of the lower atmosphere in creating light are reduced or even non-existent at certain altitude, and there will be a gap where nothing is visible until their line of sight passes through a bubble above the ISS, where the Moon, and stars, will be visible again.
The reason for NASA using the ISO 400 setting and the wide lens is then explained. At lower ISO, it is possible that the stars may have showed up even with such short exposure times, raising questions. The wide lens and thus small moon will make the colour changes of the Moon less noticeable on quick examination, but if one was to enlarge the Moon and examine the colour profiles of each image with the appropriate software, great variation would be noted. The bracketed images are just as important as the 0 correction images, to someone who knows how to interpret the data.

@wmd_2008
Can YOU know give it a rest YOU don't know enough about photography and YOU don't check exif data.

I think it is you who do not understand. The meaning of "manual" on these cameras is not what you think. The ISO 400 remains constant, and as can be noted with the exposure times of the bracketed images which are shot continuously, the changes occur so quickly that a human could not do that. It is why they took so many bracketed images, the colour changes in those shots contain a lot of information, to the right people.

a reply to: GaryN

Guess what NUMPTY the photographer still decides ALL the settings they decide iso shutter speed and aperture and then select the amount of exposure bracketing is that SIMPLE enough for you. If I do bracketed exposures on my camera there are a couple of ranges I can choose but I choose them I can also bracket on white balance as well.

I like how you are now coming up with even more BS because you where wrong about not being able to take the pictures in the first place.

a reply to: GaryN

So now there are plasma bubbles that make the invisible light visible... Nice story bro.

I still can't understand one thing in your theory - why would X-rays, UV and infrared raditation function normally in space, being able to be photographed by cameras, but the visible part of the spectrum is invisible to anything unless it's made visible by atmosphere or ionosphere? What's so special about the visible part of the EM spectrum? Did the universe pull a nasty one on us humans and made itself invisible to us whenever we go to deep space? If an animal that can see in UV or infrared (such as bees) was sent to space, would they see the stars and everything else?

Looking forward to your explanation.

originally posted by: GaryN
The reason for NASA using the ISO 400 setting and the wide lens is then explained. At lower ISO, it is possible that the stars may have showed up even with such short exposure times, raising questions

Again, you're showing that you don't understand basic photography. A lower ISO would make the sensor less sensitive to light, not more.

a reply to: nataylor

originally posted by: GaryN
The reason for NASA using the ISO 400 setting and the wide lens is then explained. At lower ISO, it is possible that the stars may have showed up even with such short exposure times, raising questions

Again, you're showing that you don't understand basic photography. A lower ISO would make the sensor less sensitive to light, not more.

That was what I was trying to say. If they had used ISO 100, the exposure times would have been longer, and stars, if they are brighter from certain altitudes as described by the Voskhod 2 crew (and perhaps why ed mitchell said the stars were 10 times brighter) may have shown up at say 1/30 sec from the ISS. You can't image stars from Earth with a 1/30 sec exposure at any ISO. Well, maybe with the A7S, but that's another story. Us with older cameras might be looking for 10 or 15 seconds at ISO 400 to 1600, so stars visible with 1/30 sec at ISO 100 from the ISS would really have raised some eyebrows. If anyone ever noticed.

originally posted by: GaryN

The reason for NASA using the ISO 400 setting and the wide lens is then explained. At lower ISO, it is possible that the stars may have showed up even with such short exposure times, raising questions. The wide lens and thus small moon will make the colour changes of the Moon less noticeable on quick examination, but if one was to enlarge the Moon and examine the colour profiles of each image with the appropriate software, great variation would be noted. The bracketed images are just as important as the 0 correction images, to someone who knows how to interpret the data.

Please link to anywhere that confirms this and I mean a photographic site, so put up or please STFU because you are getting desperate !

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: nataylor

originally posted by: GaryN
The reason for NASA using the ISO 400 setting and the wide lens is then explained. At lower ISO, it is possible that the stars may have showed up even with such short exposure times, raising questions

Again, you're showing that you don't understand basic photography. A lower ISO would make the sensor less sensitive to light, not more.

That was what I was trying to say. If they had used ISO 100, the exposure times would have been longer, and stars, if they are brighter from certain altitudes as described by the Voskhod 2 crew (and perhaps why ed mitchell said the stars were 10 times brighter) may have shown up at say 1/30 sec from the ISS. You can't image stars from Earth with a 1/30 sec exposure at any ISO. Well, maybe with the A7S, but that's another story. Us with older cameras might be looking for 10 or 15 seconds at ISO 400 to 1600, so stars visible with 1/30 sec at ISO 100 from the ISS would really have raised some eyebrows. If anyone ever noticed.

The shutter time may be longer BUT that is because at iso 100 the sensor is less sensitive go look up the exposure triangle!!!!

dp

originally posted by: GaryN
That was what I was trying to say. If they had used ISO 100, the exposure times would have been longer, and stars, if they are brighter from certain altitudes as described by the Voskhod 2 crew (and perhaps why ed mitchell said the stars were 10 times brighter) may have shown up at say 1/30 sec from the ISS.

If they used an ISO of 100, the exposure times would have been 4 times as long and would have produced *the exact same exposure*. Again, you don't seem to understand the exposure triangle.

a reply to: nataylor

I was going from memory, f/8 ISO 100 1/30 sec came out. Anyway, with this calculator I don't need my memory any more. Anyone in need of some rather old, slightly unreliable memory?
web.forret.com...

a reply to: wildespace

So now there are plasma bubbles that make the invisible light visible... Nice story bro.

Not a story, it's fact. Uses well known principles, but the model has not been applied to astronomy and the visibility of the heavens from Earth.

What's so special about the visible part of the EM spectrum?

Seeing as this is a conspiracy site, let's have some. The visible portion of the spectrum carries very low energy, so unless you can focus all that energy on a CCD pixel, you can't get an electron out of it.
This is why there were UV and x-ray telescopes in orbit from the 60s, tho they weren't using CCDs then, but no visible light telescope until Hubble, when they had finally managed to figure out the still classified optics that are needed to put enough of the wavefront onto a CCD pixel. That's a simple explanation though. UV and X-ray energies are sufficient that it is much easier to image them.
This is why there are no other visible light telescopes in space, nobody else has the technology to do it, and this is also why if you want to go into space, you need a Star Tracker, which you can only get if you play nicely with the PTB, meaning NASA/Military corporations. When India or Japan want to do a space mission, there is always a NASA/Military experiment onboard, it's part of the deal to get your Star Tracker. Sun sensors can be purchased, and you also need those to know where you are and navigate in space.
The advances in optics both for microscopic, and telescopic devices both on Earth and in space can all be traced back to the Officine Galileo, and the origin of the science they have used since the time of Galileos early scopes was from the Vatican itself. Galileo was an artisan, a craftsman, not a scientist. The vatican provided the science, Galileo made the devices, and then the Vatican used them to further their microscope and telescope based scientific studies.
The Germans acquired the information from the Vatican early in WW2, and that information then was acquired by the USA at wars end, along with many German scientists, and became the property of an above-top-secret Military group that developed eventually into NASA, who still have much more science in their black books than we will ever know about.
True or not, I think I deserve a a star or two for creative writing. Yes, no?

Did the universe pull a nasty one on us humans and made itself invisible to us whenever we go to deep space? If an animal that can see in UV or infrared (such as bees) was sent to space, would they see the stars and everything else?

Darned good question. The compound lenses of the bee may be able to see UV in space, I'd never even though about that before, but the animals with eyes similar to us, with the simple optics, would see nothing at any wavelength in space. The insects compound eyes are rather like the APS sensors being used in cameras like the A7S, with a microlens for each element, or pixel. Will look into that some, but now have to learn the ropes with Stelarium, might be busy for a while!

originally posted by: GaryN

This is why there are no other visible light telescopes in space

TOTAL AND UTTER BS and you know it ,that whole post above is YOU back peddling because YOU can't admit YOU were wrong.

What about the Japan Selene mission for example

Two 2.2 megapixel CCD HDTV cameras, one wide-angle and one telephoto, were also on board

Any mission in recent years has used standard small mirror telescope in front of a ccd chip for imaging.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
Seeing as this is a conspiracy site, let's have some. The visible portion of the spectrum carries very low energy, so unless you can focus all that energy on a CCD pixel, you can't get an electron out of it.

Well, firstly, the visible portion of spectrum has higher energy than infrared, microwave, or radio portions. And you seem to suggest that what is invisible or un-photographable in the visible portion, can be photographed in infrared. Secondly, what is there to back up your statement that you need to focus all that energy on a CCD pixel to get an electron out of it? Camera makers would strongly disagree with you, seeing how their cameras work just fine by using lens or mirrors to focus the image on the sensor normally. By using a red, green, or blue filter, a space camera "sees" exactly in those portions of visible spectrum, blocking out any UV or infrared.

This is why there were UV and x-ray telescopes in orbit from the 60s, tho they weren't using CCDs then,

Those telescopes were up there because the atmosphere blocks UV and X-rays.

but no visible light telescope until Hubble,

Wrong, Hipparcos was launched a year before the Hubble: en.wikipedia.org...

when they had finally managed to figure out the still classified optics that are needed to put enough of the wavefront onto a CCD pixel.

There's no evidence to support your claim.

This is why there are no other visible light telescopes in space, nobody else has the technology to do it

Wrong, there's been quite a view visible-light space telescopes: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: GaryN

I suggest you actually find out about the timeline for telescope development it's not what you claim that is for certain do YOU just make things up for a laugh

Telescope Timeline

If YOU don't know find out don't just type the first BS that you can think up

a reply to: wildespace
It's clear that you don't understand how any of these space based instruments work. If another country with space capability such as India or Japan wanted a space based, visible wavelength telescope in space, they could have used something like a 32 inch Ritchey-Chretien, like this one:
www.mistisoftware.com...
Theoretically, this would see almost as well as Hubble, and for a lot less money. Nobody has ever put a conventional telescope in orbit, because it would see nothing.
There are some smaller scopes being built, but the only reason they will work is because of the technology that is being released that will be a kind of crippled version of the technology that Hubble uses. That is what the "Can you see it now" program is about.
ipp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
It is not just the optics that you need, but the software too. The full technology, and software, that Hubble uses will never be available to the public.
Anyway, I think the questions from some here, and maybe even the insults, have made me look carefully enough at the ISS Zenith porthole experiment to uncover what is really going on with star visibility and how the atmosphere/ionosphere/plasmasphere determines what we will see from Earths surface, or from different altitudes. Refining the model to a point where I could present it to some very close scrutiny will take a lot of work, but I'll contact the appropriate NASA people and see if they will provide complete details of the experiment, and any results or conclusions that may have been reached. But as I seem to have been on their Ignore list for years now, I'm not too hopeful on that.

@wmd
Telescope Timeline

The improvements that Galileo made to telescopes required a new and COMPLETE understanding of lights properties and behaviour. There could be no gradual modifications of older designs, it was a total new understanding, and as I said, he was not a scientist.
The Officine Galileo that developed the Star Trackers has been taken over by a US military corporation,
www.selexgalileo.com...
but the board of directors of the original company was heavy with military brass from the US, Germany, Italy and Britain, and most of the Vatican pension fund was invested with the original company, don't know about the new company though. Trying to trace ties and connections between all these front companies/corporations of the military is pretty well impossible though. Maybe I am drawing false conclusions? Makes for good conspiracy stuff though.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
It's clear that you don't understand how any of these space based instruments work. If another country with space capability such as India or Japan wanted a space based, visible wavelength telescope in space, they could have used something like a 32 inch Ritchey-Chretien, like this one:
www.mistisoftware.com...
Theoretically, this would see almost as well as Hubble, and for a lot less money. Nobody has ever put a conventional telescope in orbit, because it would see nothing.

As opposed to the 94.5" Ritchey-Chretien that is the Hubble telescope's conventional telescope?

hubblesite.org...

Hubble's optical system is a straightforward design known as Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain, in which two special mirrors form focused images over the largest possible field of view.

hubblesite.org...

No matter how many times it has been demonstrated to you that telescopes, optics, cameras and eyes see stars in space you just won't have it and continually move the goalposts to adjust for the errors people find in your posts.

Science does not need a new model of the way light works, it just needs you to stop dismissing reality and accepting that you are wrong.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

No, it's you who don't understand. The telescope can collect the light OK, but the wavefront is not the same as the wavefront generated in the ionosphere/plasmasphere that Earth based telescopes see. You folk who think you know everything really annoy those of us who do.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey

No, it's you who don't understand. The telescope can collect the light OK, but the wavefront is not the same as the wavefront generated in the ionosphere/plasmasphere that Earth based telescopes see. You folk who think you know everything really annoy those of us who do.

No it's YOU that makes 2+2 = 5 I suggest you read up on what wavefront sensors actually do as YOU have already stated YOU don't really have a good memory.