It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GaryN
I mean photons do not travel long distances in the vacuum.
I mean photons do not travel long distances in the vacuum.
originally posted by: GaryN
From Earth, a Canon A60, 2 MP shot. You don't think Chang'e or Curiosity has at least as good a camera?
That the Chinese said" Oh, were going to the Moon, but lets not think about some astrophotography, waste of time and money?" I doubt it.
Forget Hubble, it sees what our eyes never will, and we are talking about human visibility of stars or planets, don't you get that?
we are talking about what space would look like to human vision, and away from a planet with no or little atmosphere, it will be pitch black.
how can the picture from voyager record this
Megapixels have nothing to do with light sensitivity. In fact, a smaller sensor with larger pixels would be better at capturing faint light.
do you live in either colorado or washington state?
because the only explanation for that statement is you're smoking way too much dope
so how does the photon's emitted by the sun get here?
originally posted by: GaryN
Megapixels have nothing to do with light sensitivity. In fact, a smaller sensor with larger pixels would be better at capturing faint light.
Correct.
Here's an image from the same camera as mine, with dark frame subtraction, but even without that, the Moon and planets are easily visible.
reductionism.net.seanic.net...
So maybe the ISS crew needs to downgrade from those much newer Nikons to get some conjunction images?
Find me a picture of the Sun, or Moon from space that uses an off-the shelf camera, and can be shown not to be looking through Earths atmosphere.
Find me a picture of the Sun, or Moon from space that uses an off-the shelf camera, and can be shown not to be looking through Earths atmosphere.
originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Actually thinking about this more, the ability to see stars is a relative effect to how much light is around us. For example during day we cant see stars. Therefore if the sun is pointing at them in direct site they wouldn't be able to see the stars to same effect. As they move further from sun the stars will come into view, I think a mathematical calculation could be done to show this. I would do the calc if I had time but im too absorbed on other research calcs right now so over to someone else.
originally posted by: JadeStar
Neither is lying.
They are both right. It depends on where the spacecraft (and the angle of it's window) was pointing and the time it was pointing that way.
On Earth's night side with no moon present (because it is behind you along with the Earth and the Sun) you would see stars.
Here's a challenge. Plot both Yuri Gagarin's orbit, in Celestia at the time he flew and then plot the flight of Apollo 11 to the Moon.
You'll see why one saw stars and the other didn't and be smarter in the process.
Just denying ignorance...
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: seattlerat
you may have read it but it doesnt make it true
originally posted by: Maverick7
I do not understand then why Armstrong phrased it that way because he clearly went around to the far side of the Moon at least twice and he didn't add 'We saw brilliant stars on the farside of the Moon, but not in Cis-Lunar space _BECAUSE_...'
IOW, he looks a bit puzzled and not very sure of himself.
You'd think that an astronaut would have given a semi-scientific explanation, such as "In Cis-Lunar space, the Sun was casting a glare on the windows of the capsule, both to and from the Moon".
He would have said something like "we tried to see stars with our eyes by getting behind a big boulder, but the glare off the Lunar surface, which has an albedo like asphalt was just unusually bright".
Instead he seems to have a limited or scripted comment which to the layperson seems counter-intuitive on the face of it.
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN
Find me a picture of the Sun, or Moon from space that uses an off-the shelf camera, and can be shown not to be looking through Earths atmosphere.
be very carefull what you ask for :
theres the sun
source
originally posted by: seattlerat
originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Actually thinking about this more, the ability to see stars is a relative effect to how much light is around us. For example during day we cant see stars. Therefore if the sun is pointing at them in direct site they wouldn't be able to see the stars to same effect. As they move further from sun the stars will come into view, I think a mathematical calculation could be done to show this. I would do the calc if I had time but im too absorbed on other research calcs right now so over to someone else.
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading a story about someone who either fell or climbed down a deep well during daylight and was able to see the stars...
originally posted by: GaryN
Yes, here are a couple that they took of the Sun, but never through an ND filter, which is what is needed to make it look as it should appear. All the images show the Sun way bigger than it should using that lens, so is it just optics effects,
or did the Sun really appear so large?
IMO, what makes the Sun visible is the Lunar dust atmosphere.
originally posted by: GaryN
For the record, I learned my photography from a retired R.A.F aerial survey lance technician,
I have lots of cameras, mostly film, my Coolpix 990, and D1x,