Astronaut Scott Kelly captures sunrise over western US.. And stars are showing behind sun

a reply to: Spacespider

The idea is to block light in wavelengths outside of the visible part of the spectrum to protect the eyes. The window in the link I posted has > 90% transmittance in the visible part of the spectrum and I'm sure the copula's windows have similar characteristics so there's plenty of visible light coming in.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Spacespider

The idea is to block light in wavelengths outside of the visible part of the spectrum to protect the eyes. The window in the link I posted has > 90% transmittance in the visible part of the spectrum and I'm sure the copula's windows have similar characteristics so there's plenty of visible light coming in.

So your saying if I am in space looking at the sun with 90% transmittance foil over my eyes I can make out stars around the sun.. our sun that luminosity is 400 trillion trillion watts

how can NASA slip up like this?
or have they forgotten that they said
that there is NO way to see stars in space?
proves you Can fool all the people all of the time.

originally posted by: buddha
how can NASA slip up like this?
or have they forgotten that they said
that there is NO way to see stars in space?
proves you Can fool all the people all of the time.

You're confused. What you're referring to is the lack of stars in Moon landing photos (though, actually there are a few, Venus I know shows up in a couple) which is because of sunlight being reflected off the Moon's surface. If you doubt this, try going outside mid-day when it's really sunny and standing on any number of reflective surfaces (snow, cement, etc). Snow blindness doesn't happen from staring directly at the Sun...

Oh my, NASA made such a silly error (or to be more precise, it was one of their blog editors, Sarah Loff). The photo is not of a sunrise, but of the Moon against the night sky. The Twitter post used as the source doesn't mention anything about a sunrise.

Hate to be the first one to have picked up on this.

a reply to: wildespace

That is what I thought, just looking at the picture.

Really puts into perspective how miniscule we as individuals are, in the big scheme of things.

a reply to: wildespace

I have to say I thought it odd myself.

The moon was a very thin crescent on that day, and looking at it on here the crescent is very over-exposed and the remainder is earthshine.

Still a cool picture though.

Yeah, definitely the moon. Here's a view from Starry Night Pro showing labels for the moon, some of the brighter stars, and cities visible (click on the image to get a bigger version):

a reply to: Spacespider

So your saying if I am in space looking at the sun with 90% transmittance foil over my eyes I can make out stars around the sun.. our sun that luminosity is 400 trillion trillion watts

No, I didn't say that. What the human eye sees and what a camera images aren't necessarily the same thing of course. The human eye is analogous to a digital camera — both have a lens, an aperture (the iris in the case of an eye) and a sensor (cones and rods on the retina). The analogy could even be expanded to include lens filters (sunglasses). Different camera models with different hardware and settings will obviously capture different images and they'll all be different in varying degrees to what any particular human eye/brain might see at the same time.

Then there are all the other factors, a big one being the angle of the light source. There's a dizzying amount of factors that would have to be accounted for.


a reply to: wildespace

Oh my, NASA made such a silly error (or to be more precise, it was one of their blog editors, Sarah Loff). The photo is not of a sunrise, but of the Moon against the night sky. The Twitter post used as the source doesn't mention anything about a sunrise.

Hate to be the first one to have picked up on this.

I thought the same thing at first too because it seems like if the Sun were that high, the terminator would be visible on the Earth's surface but I'm honestly not sure.

EDIT:

nataylor's post above mine seems to be pretty conclusive. Thanks for the post!

I've got the feeling that's not the sun . I don't see any light covering a part of earth or reflected from the ocean or lakes..my guess it that someone took a photograph with flash that reflected the glass ..

a reply to: 0bserver1
The post 2 posts before yours proves it's the moon, not a flash, but good that you noticed it's not the sun. I wish the NASA blogmaker had noticed that!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The moon it is then.. I noticed it emediately I often use sun planet reflections in the art I make.. never would have guessed that it could be the moon,but now reading the long exposure it makes sense. ..

a While im seeing this lovely photo,

i can here, Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) " Sunrise"
in my Head aka the 2001 space odyssey theme

www.youtube.com...



look at all those stars!

a reply to: Spacespider

Here's how

Camera Make = NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model = NIKON D4

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/2 second ===> 0.5 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 14/10 ===> ƒ/1.4
Exposure Program = manual control (1)
ISO Speed Ratings = 8000

It was a 28 mm wide angle lens.

The Sun/Moon what ever it is, is very over exposed you see NASA keeps the exif data attached to the picture so the info is very easy to find so much for NASA hiding things.

originally posted by: buddha
how can NASA slip up like this?
or have they forgotten that they said
that there is NO way to see stars in space?
proves you Can fool all the people all of the time.

Really you have a link to that claim.

originally posted by: olaru12
I still wonder why the stars weren't visible from the photos taken from the moon.

Beautiful pics.....!

Exposure here is the film back from a Hasselblad used on the Moon the exposure setting depending on the Sun position are shown.



The picture in the OP is taken with a wide aperture f1.4 lets in lots of light far more than the Moon shots, iso 8000 way more sensative than the film used on the Moon it's that simple.

a reply to: wmd_2008
do a quick google search

that pic must have had like a 3 min exposure to capture all those stars

originally posted by: [post=19688691]wmd_2008
The picture in the OP is taken with a wide aperture f1.4 lets in lots of light far more than the Moon shots, iso 8000 way more sensative than the film used on the Moon it's that simple.

does that mean we'll be seeing many stars in pics taken from outer space from now on since we know how it can be done?
is this the last time this camera will be used by astronauts?

a reply to: Spacespider

That's moonrise, not sunrise.