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

originally posted by: Spacespider

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

Yes me to.. perhaps if this picture was long exposure..

Yes, it was a long exposure, which is why the MOON is over-exposed in the shot.

originally posted by: 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.

Beat me to it. Precisely right. All of you who say NASA lied about not being able to get stars in daylight shots can go back into hiding now.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

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?

This camera is used all the time for these sorts of shots, and will continue to be used in the future until even better cameras replace it.
Early space station astrophotography:
science.nasa.gov...
Here's half an hour of more recent time lapse astrophotography from ISS (including the moon in some shots):

When sunrise starts to happen you can tell; it starts to completely blind the camera to the stars on that horizon.

I've heard someone say stars can only be seen in pics from ISS when viewed through the atmosphere. Someone should tell Gary about this.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

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?

There are plenty of astronaut photos of stars.

Kelly's twitter feed has plenty on its own

twitter.com...

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I've heard someone say stars can only be seen in pics from ISS when viewed through the atmosphere. Someone should tell Gary about this.

The OPs images from Scott Kelly are being viewed through the Earths atmosphere, they must be if he was in the Cupola. Only a top-side EVA astronaut can see into deep space, looking away from Earth.


@ngchunter

This camera is used all the time for these sorts of shots, and will continue to be used in the future until even better cameras replace it.

Well the Sony A7S should be tried, as it will capture stars in real time, but again, it needs the top-side EVA to look into deep space. This NASA image was taken from inside the ISS, the camera was mounted to a porthole frame (pre-cupola)so it must be looking through atmosphere, unless they slewed the whole space station just to take that shot.
science.nasa.gov...
And while they are out there, why not take an ND filtered camera, then we can see what the Sun really looks like. I'm told it would be white, lets see it. And if it is white, why is it listed on the HR diagram as a yellow dwarf?
What Kind of Star is the Sun?
www.universetoday.com...
If it is white, it should be classed as a much hotter star, but it is G2, yellow moving towards orange main sequence.

Actually if you do several exposures and put them together in photoshop, its possible to create that!

Coolest pics of Earth I've ever seen. Thanks for the share. One question. What are the things in the top right of the photo that look like pieces of tree bark?

Amazing, I new I should of been a fly boy and not a grunt. But that hole fear of flying thing was a deal breaker.

a reply to: GaryN

The OPs images from Scott Kelly are being viewed through the Earths atmosphere, they must be if he was in the Cupola. Only a top-side EVA astronaut can see into deep space, looking away from Earth.

I don't think that's correct. At 250 or so miles up there's not really much atmosphere. Note the sleek aerodynamics of the ISS. They're basically in Space already so when not looking AT Earth they're looking into "deep" Space without looking through atmosphere of any noteworthy amount . The difference seems to be evident in the photo.

Please, anyone correct any errors above. Thanks.

It is indeed the Moon, not the Sun. The image was taken right over Texas facing South. The brightest patch of lights on the ground in the middle of the image is Houston. The Sun doesn't rise in the South...

Check out Scott Kelly's Twitter feed, he has some amazing images and videos of the stars as seen from space. It's amazing.

twitter.com...

Check out this video he posted!
twitter.com...

a reply to: In4ormant

It's parts of the space station's solar panels.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: In4ormant

It's parts of the space station's solar panels.

Ty

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
There's not an exact line where the atmosphere ends, but the density drops off so rapidly that you can see an "edge" to the atmosphere in the OP photo and the moon is just above it. I mean just look at the OP photo, it shows the atmosphere pretty well, doesn't it?

Anyway I don't think GaryN really has a clear model of what he thinks should and shouldn't be seen, because such a model would take thinning atmospheric density into account.

Here's a graph showing atmospheric pressure versus altitude and it's so close to zero at 50km you can't see the difference:


I'm not sure of the altitude of the ISS when that OP photo was taken but it's usually between 330-435km, so it's like 7 times the height of that chart.

Looks a bit like Ceres

As with the recent DSCOVR imagery from orbit, absolutely beautiful.

It amazes me how anyone can be the same after witnessing such a view on a daily basis during such missions.

Peace.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thought the moons surface - the dust and rocks - were dark. How do they reflect light as you claim?

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thought the moons surface - the dust and rocks - were dark. How do they reflect light as you claim?

If they reflected no light at all, they'd be flat black. Even charcoal briquettes are not 100% dark. We call this...albedo.

I would think either the moon footage is fake or the sky have been edited out.

I'm pretty sure they're fake, I guess we'll find out when China goes there.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

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?

Where have you been while space agencies were releasing countless night-timelapses all these years?

www.youtube.com...


And here's what a sunrise looks like from the ISS: www.youtube.com...


The Sun is blindingly bright, no stars can be seen in the same view if the camera exposes for it correctly.