First Aurora images taken in Space ?

Are the SkyLab-3 images the first pictures taken in Space that show Earth's Aurora ?


SL3-130-3136


Link - eol.jsc.nasa.gov...




SL3-130-3099


Link - eol.jsc.nasa.gov...



Search SL3-130-3095 to SL3-130-3138 To see more Aurora images from SkyLab-3:

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth
Link - eol.jsc.nasa.gov...




Just wondering if anyone knows the answer to this question, and if so,
why was it never seen before in earlier space photos,
such as images from the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo missions ?



Morning Sun Seen From the Apollo 7 Spacecraft


Link - www.nasa.gov...


Thoughts anyone ?

Yes and how come you can see stars, I thought you couldn't see stars in space ? Or is photo not taken far out enough in space to un see the stars?

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
Yes and how come you can see stars, I thought you couldn't see stars in space ?

Why wouldn't you see stars from the shadowed side of the planet?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Seems to be some confusion on the topic.

Very cool thanks for sharing

a reply to: Cloudbuster

They are long exposures, same as any other photo that shows aurorae, or stars - eg:

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

An excellent view of the southern aurora, luminous bands or streamers of
light, in the Southern Hemisphere, as photographed from the Skylab space
station in Earth orbit. The space station was moving into the sunlight when
this picture was taken. This view is near the edge of the aurora cap. The
surface of the Earth is in the foreground. The permanent aurora over the
South Pole is in the background. Scientist-Astronaut Owen K. Garriott,
Skylab 3 science pilot, took this photograph with a hand-held 35mm Nikon
camera, with a four-second exposure at f/1.2, using high speed Ektachrome
film. Because auroras are caused by solar activity, they occur at the same
time in the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

originally posted by: toysforadults
Seems to be some confusion on the topic.

Only for moon landing hoax wackos.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well you could actually try to explain why the astronauts in the video contradict each other.

But it's way easier to just brush it off as conspiracy nutters asking to many questions for clarification.

a reply to: toysforadults

The big lie here is this youtube video.

No-one has ever claimed you can't see stars in space. Seeing stars from a brightly lit lunar surface is as likely as seeing them in a brightly sunlit day on on Earth. The video also dishonestly puts the words spoken by Armstrong in an interview with Sir Patrick Moore over the video of the post-Apollo press conference. The video itself is therefore lying.

originally posted by: toysforadults
But it's way easier to just brush it off as conspiracy nutters asking to many questions for clarification.

Anyone who doesn't think we went to the moon, when you can now see all the landing sites, is mental.

But this thread isn't about moon landing wackos, the Original Poster has a pretty good thread showing a very interesting perspective of earth's magnetosphere. I would rather see the discussion about this scientific natural phenomena then more rehashed moon mentalness.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Seems to be some confusion on the topic.

Lunar surface is the operative phrase.

originally posted by: Cloudbuster
Yes and how come you can see stars, I thought you couldn't see stars in space ? Or is photo not taken far out enough in space to un see the stars?

For pictures, it's all about exposure time and the brightness of the stars relative to that exposure time.

Put it this way, if you looked up one night and saw a lot of stars, and then tried to take a picture of the stars with your camera, but using a short exposure time, such as is used in daylight or for other brightly-lit scenes, like on when exploring the sunlit surface of the moon, that picture of the sky would probably look all black and not show the stars that you could see with your eyes.

The OP's image of the aurora was taken on the shadow side of earth, so the exposure time was set longer in order for the aurora to appear, which also allowed some stars to appear.


As for the OP's question, the Skylab image may be the first -- at least maybe the first that for which the aurora was the target of the image.

I have seen both sides of this issue for many years. some astronauts commented how black things were without any stars and others talk about stars. The atmosphere and lensing effect of the planet would actually interact with light to create the star image. Actually, the heliosphere should also produce images of stars because of it's lensing effect.

It isn't really important to me anyway, seems that any lens would generate the image, even the glass on a window or camera.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I have seen both sides of this issue for many years. some astronauts commented how black things were without any stars and others talk about stars. The atmosphere and lensing effect of the planet would actually interact with light to create the star image. Actually, the heliosphere should also produce images of stars because of it's lensing effect.

It isn't really important to me anyway, seems that any lens would generate the image, even the glass on a window or camera.

...or photons striking the light-sensitive cells in the back of your eye and registering that interaction in your brain.

So, no...It does not take atmosphere for photons of light to become visible to our eyes. We are not blind in space, as the "atmosphere is required for light to be visible" crowd would want us to believe.

a reply to: easynow

What's more interesting is how the Sun is creating a focused hotspot on the Earth's surface. Funny huh?

I could care less for all this drama about seeing stars from space. I just wanted to say thank you OP for sharing these amazing photos. If they are in fact the first picture's of the Earth's Aurora they should be framed and put in one of NASA'S museum exhibits.

Maybe you should sent them to NASA or some other space agency and make the recommendation, it couldn't hurt and future generations could get to enjoy them.

Thanks again OP. S+F

originally posted by: Geki09
a reply to: easynow

What's more interesting is how the Sun is creating a focused hotspot on the Earth's surface. Funny huh?

Please explain.

a reply to: toysforadults
The astronauts never contradicted each other. What happens is the astronauts say something then it cuts to a random statement that essentially "debunks" it. Standard for youtube, not ATS.

You took a random video pieced together on youtube and said AHA!!!

Nope.

As for the OP, several shots of the aurora have been taken.

originally posted by: easynow
Are the SkyLab-3 images the first pictures taken in Space that show Earth's Aurora ?


Just wondering if anyone knows the answer to this question, and if so,
why was it never seen before in earlier space photos,
such as images from the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo missions ?

I'm actually kind of surprised they saw them from Skylab. All of the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo missions (including Skylab flew in low-inclination orbits that didn't go further than ~30° north of the equator. Auroras typically appear a couple thousand miles further north. As it is, the Skylab photos show the aurora right on the horizon.

Generally speaking, it uses more fuel to fly orbits that are more or less inclined than the latitude of your launch site. Cape Canaveral is ~28° 30' North Latitude. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was an exception because the Soviet launch site at the Baikonur Cosmodrome is at 45° 55' North, and they have to incline their launches ~5° north to avoid dropping stages on China.

This raises the question; if all of the Soviet / Russian manned missions flew orbits inclined ~51° (which means they flew much further north than the US missions), are there any pictures of the aurora taken by Vostok, Voshkhod or early Soyuz or even Salyut 1?

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

This raises the question; if all of the Soviet / Russian manned missions flew orbits inclined ~51° (which means they flew much further north than the US missions), are there any pictures of the aurora taken by Vostok, Voshkhod or early Soyuz or even Salyut 1?

I have a few books on early Soviet space research, and while they pre-date actual manned missions they do all mention that researching the aurora from space would be both possible and desirable. It would seem very likely that they did observe them, but finding evidence of that is a different thing!