Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: wildespace
I'm just gone leave this here: www.youtube.com...

That stars (or any other visible light) are invisible in space is a stupid "alternative theory", mostly propagated by Eric Dollard (and our own GaryN on ATS), and is based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Plenty of astronauts and cameras have seen stars outside of the Earth's atmosphere, it just takes certain circumstances or camera settings (basically, long exposure or eye adaptation).

Thank you for having some common sense. I was just about to post something similar.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

the simplest argument against this idiocy - the sun is a star

Idiocy? yes, those idiots travelling to the moon in their fancy machines! His observation is worth consideration, and if you cant see stars from the moon, maybe stars are something that we dont necessarily understand. This is speculation, but maybe they are somehow embedded into our atmosphere, or something.

I have a hard time believing I just read that.

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

the simplest argument against this idiocy - the sun is a star

Idiocy? yes, those idiots travelling to the moon in their fancy machines! His observation is worth consideration, and if you cant see stars from the moon, maybe stars are something that we dont necessarily understand. This is speculation, but maybe they are somehow embedded into our atmosphere, or something.

I have a hard time believing I just read that.

There's the great mysteries of science, and then there's the great mysteries of human mind and how gullible it can be, believing in all kinds of nonsence. If the simplest explanation that you can't see stars in bright sunlight doesn't work for them, what does?

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: JadeStar

Okay... I don't actually believe that.

You can never be too sure on them enternets... and juuuust in case it wasn't crystal clear, I was kidding, though I DO think some things are possible that would counter the notion I have common sense, but tarps in the sky with holes in it isn't one of them.

I was a Planetary Sciences minor at the UofA... years ago, true, but we knew a few things back then in the 80's and I still dabble. I would've been an astronomer except for the math and general lack of fashion sense that seemed required (tweed... hate me that tweed).

Ah, I got it now. Well played

BTW: You will be happy to know that we've moved on from from tweed and the little mini-rave parties following a long day of talks at AAS meetings like one recently in Seattle are kinda cool too. From what I can tell, the field and the types of people who become astronomers has changed a lot since the 1980s but the one thing we all have in common is a passion for and fascination with the Universe.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: cooperton

Maybe we are the only planet with the only moon revolving around the only sun in the whole universe...
Now thats a scary thought.

Maybe you are the only dreamer dreaming this dream and that is the universe.
Is that a scary thought?

a reply to: oldworldbeliever

and our own GaryN on ATS

Hey, I heard that... 8)

The only way this issue will ever be resolved is if someone can actually do the required experiments from space. NASA will not do them, so someone else needs to, perhaps some crowd source funded project. Yes astronauts have said they can see stars, and there are images too, but all those are looking sideways through Earths atmosphere, and not out into deep space. Only EVA astronauts can see deep space from the ISS, looking through the cupola windows is still looking sideways, but none of 200+ EVA astronauts has mentioned what space looks like looking away from Earth, no mention of the Moon, planets or stars. Well, tell a lie, Chris Hadfield did describe the view, but of course everyone says he wasn't dark adapted or some other excuse, which is all BS if they are in Earths shadow for an hour or so at a time.

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.

That sounds pretty straight forward to me, but others put their own twist on what he actually means. Experiments please, NASA. Mr Hadfield has not answered my query on reddit, asking him to clarify his statement.

Here's hadfield on a short video:
Chris Hadfield describes the beauty of a spacewalk
www.theglobeandmail.com...

Watch at 59 sec. "suddenly, you are out in space", and there is a black screen, not the view of stars or a milky way. Oh, of course, he hadn't dark ada[ted yet, silly me. Then the view of the Moon, with the Earth close by, as that is the only time it will be visible, through Earths atmosphere. My camera takes a moon image in 1/30 sec, looking out away from Earth. Lets see an image of the Moon from EVA with a similar camera, looking away from Earth, say at midnight ISS time.
So while we are out on EVA, looking away from the Earth at mid-day, ISS time, lets image the Sun, through the appropriate filter of course:


This image : 200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.
mcalisterium.files.wordpress.com...
So mid-day on the ISS, same camera and same settings, lets do a comparative analysis. Won't happen. No images of the Sun from space, that do not use Erths atmosphere, using an off-the-shelf camera, no video of the Moon, easy from Earth, so much we have NOT seen that should have been imaged on the very first orbital flights, but still has not been.

And now with cameras like the Sony A7S, really, lets see those stars in real-time, looking away from Earth of course.
Youtube video:
www.youtube.com...

i do mean to insult the alleged intelligence of certain ATS members with this , but here is irrefutable evidence that stars are visible from outside earths atmosphere :



source

if you dont get it - too bad

Have some more:

Photo taken by Apollo 15 during the lunar eclipse that occured en route, superimposed on Stellarium's view of the sky at the same time:



(the moon is not in the Stellarium because it is the view from Earth, which is where Apollo 15 wasn't).

Lots of stars, Venus, Mars, Saturn (just visible in the CSM window frame), photographed on high speed film during Apollo 16's journey home:



Stellarium view at the same time:



So, stars photographed in space.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Photo taken by Apollo 15 during the lunar eclipse that occured en route, superimposed on Stellarium's view of the sky at the same time:

Ah yes, the Nikon with the f/0.7 lens, high speed 2485 film,(ISO 1000, rare and very expensive) long exposures, and extended red(into the IR)sensitivity.
If you think your eyes or a regular camera/lens/film could see those stars, you are dreaming. Star Trackers (which were incorporated into the Apollo G&N computers sextant) can see stars too, but you couldn't afford one, even if they would sell you one. The visibility question was always about if they would be visible by eye, but those images also indicate that without that special film, they could not be photographed. Would the A7S see them from space?

Lots of stars, Venus, Mars, Saturn (just visible in the CSM window frame), photographed on high speed film during Apollo 16's journey home:

Looks like long exposure and perhaps Earths atmosphere too. Without knowing exactly which way they were looking it is not possible to say that the stars and planets would be visible when looking into the void.

I don't understand why there is such objection to doing rigorously controlled experiments to find out exactly what is visible, when, and utilising both Earths atmosphere and not, looking directly away from Earth. NASA is avoiding the experiments, for good reason.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: cooperton

Maybe we are the only planet with the only moon revolving around the only sun in the whole universe...
Now thats a scary thought.

Maybe everything else is a hologram.

a reply to: GaryN
Yes, in the pre-digital age you needed very sensitive film and long exposures to get stars to show up. Even most modern digital cameras require high ISO and exposure settings to capture stars.

Human vision, though, is a lot more sensitive when allowed to be fully dark-adapted.

Someone on ATS has brought up the quote by an Apollo commander that he could see a deluge of stars when flying over the dark side of the Moon, so much so that the familiar constellations could hardly be distinguished among all those stars.

As has already been mentioned (and which should be common knowledge), Apollo astronauts used a sextant to help navigation using stars: www.ion.org...

Question to onebigmonkey - could you please tell us what the exposure time for those starry Apollo photos were?

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Photo taken by Apollo 15 during the lunar eclipse that occured en route, superimposed on Stellarium's view of the sky at the same time:

Ah yes, the Nikon with the f/0.7 lens, high speed 2485 film,(ISO 1000, rare and very expensive) long exposures, and extended red(into the IR)sensitivity.
If you think your eyes or a regular camera/lens/film could see those stars, you are dreaming. Star Trackers (which were incorporated into the Apollo G&N computers sextant) can see stars too, but you couldn't afford one, even if they would sell you one. The visibility question was always about if they would be visible by eye, but those images also indicate that without that special film, they could not be photographed. Would the A7S see them from space?

Apollo astronauts made countless references to stars (see the link I posted earlier) and navigated using them. The G&N computers could not 'see' stars, it simply knew their position. It was astronauts that looked through the sextant to find the stars and tell the computer where they were. The relative angles to known stars gave their position

Lots of stars, Venus, Mars, Saturn (just visible in the CSM window frame), photographed on high speed film during Apollo 16's journey home:


Looks like long exposure and perhaps Earths atmosphere too. Without knowing exactly which way they were looking it is not possible to say that the stars and planets would be visible when looking into the void.

No atmosphere, it's in cislunar space. They were looking towards Venus and Mars. They knew what they were photographing.

I don't understand why there is such objection to doing rigorously controlled experiments to find out exactly what is visible, when, and utilising both Earths atmosphere and not, looking directly away from Earth. NASA is avoiding the experiments, for good reason.

It would be a waste of money on a stupid pointless exercise. I don't understand why you can't take in the simple notion that stars and planets are visible in space. Claiming otherwise is nonsense.

Question to onebigmonkey - could you please tell us what the exposure time for those starry Apollo photos were?

The lunar eclipse images were 1, 2 and 10 seconds. I used the clearest one for that overlay (1 second). The image of Venus & Mars was captured during Skylab contamination photography (they wanted to see how much things like urine dumps would affect interpreting stellar photography) and used exposures of 1/8, 1, 10 and 100 seconds. Those two images were 10 second exposures.

This report has more details:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

If you were to leave earths atmosphere you would think your eyes were a telescope with the amount of heavenly bodies you would see...

So Ya this is another lie...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
If you were to leave earths atmosphere you would think your eyes were a telescope with the amount of heavenly bodies you would see...

So Ya this is another lie...

And yet again there are numerous quotes from many many astronauts who say that is exactly what they could see.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

They say you can't see stars?
Richard Hoagland of NASA says otherwise...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Richard Hoagland of NASA says otherwise...

Hoaxland was never with NASA.....

a reply to: cooperton

I just want to say W T F.
I am befuddled by the first 2 pages.
I did not know this level of ignorance was possible.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: onebigmonkey

They say you can't see stars?

No, they say you can see stars.

Two words : Concave Earth